darkraven_109's Reviews

G.I. Joe: Retaliation (2013)

7/10

4 April 2013

The first GI JOE directed by Stephen Sommers was a joke; it didn't resemble the old GI JOE cartoons or anything related to the license. The action was weak, the cast was too unwieldy, it didn't even look like GI JOE and overall, a waste of money. The sequel/ reboot, thankfully, avoids all of these faults and gives a movie worth my time and money. It's everything the first movie should've been.

The tone of the movie was great. It may take place in modern times (you got touchscreen computers all over the place) but it still lives in the GI JOE universe (Firefly's entire arsenal of creative explosives speaks for itself). The successful combination of realism and imagination bleeds throughout the whole movie and it's part of what made the movie enjoyable.

The characters are fewer but better; now that the cast list has been cut to half its size in the first installment, there's more time for the writers to add what development they could to people based on an 80's cartoon. The characterizations weren't the best but they were more than something. Each and every single character was great, all of them having their own distinct personalities instead of being cardboard copies of each other or some other character. Whether Joe or Cobra, it wasn't hard to pick a favorite from each side.

A small problem with the cast, though, was that some of the characters didn't get the amount of screen presence they deserved, such as Duke and (especially) Cobra Commander. Characters from the previous movie aren't even mentioned and in the case of a certain big named GI JOE character, left forgotten. Now it was nice to see the effort put behind the movie's attempt to leave part one in the dust by removing half of the cast but it would've been nice if some explanation as to what happened to the other JOES was given.

The action was actually enjoyable this time around, with a mix of firefights, vehicle combat and ninja duels, all of which are done with a good eye for adrenaline. The camera was thankfully held in place and it made watching the action scenes a lot easier on the eye. some of the CGI looked too fake in some parts, but thankfully the CGI was used sparingly and only when necessary.

The main problem the movie had was the weak resolution and revelation of certain key subplots. I'm not going to spoil any of them but when a major subplot was introduced, it was abruptly ended in less than a few seconds when the movie was nearing its end. Loose ends were hanging by the end but this didn't cost the movie dearly; while it did leave me wanting some closure to the given problem, it didn't hinder the fact that I had a blast watching RETALIATION.

GI JOE: RETALIATION should serve as a lesson to future movies based on some old license; it's fine to have a reboot, it's fine to change the tone into a gritty one but never forget what made those titles popular in the first place: fun. RETALIATION successfully combined the limits of reality and the inspiration of the franchise to deliver a movie that doesn't only resemble the cartoons (only grittier this time around) but a simple action movie that can entertain both JOE fans and those who are new to the franchise.

1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Silent Hill: Revelation (2012)

7/10

A Video Game Movie Done Right

29 November 2012

Warning: Spoilers

The first SILENT HILL (2006) was an exception amongst the video-game based movies out there; it was actually a decent adaptation of a well known property and it worked as a stand alone movie. I have the movie to thank for introducing me to the video game franchise so now armed with some experience in the games and a fairly good understanding of the SILENT HILL mythos, I went to the (delayed international) release of SILENT HILL REVELATION and I was not disappointed.

The movie does a good job of picking up years after where last movie ended without making it hard for anyone new to the franchise catch up. It's a simple story though it could get a bit too clichéd at times. Every now and then, the characters say some really cheesy lines which can make pretty much anyone who's seen a lot of movies either sigh or cringe. The romantic aspect of the film isn't really handled well, which was a waste since individually, the actors of Heather and Vincent were pretty decent but when they had to act like a couple, it always fell flat.

A major problem with the movie was the overlying feeling that it was rushed. I don't know if a good number of scenes were deleted in the scripts but it seemed that way. Many of the side characters were introduced only to be forgotten or unceremoniously killed off after maybe a minute of screen time and this was a glaring flaw for me. With acting talent like Malcolm Macdowell and Carrie Anne-Moss in the movie, it was a sad waste that their characters were given less than five minutes of screen time. The emotional factor of the first film was also lost due to the brisk take on the story, which is a large loss for the sequel. The movie would've greatly benefited if its running time was almost as long as the first movie (which clocked at nearly two hours).

Beyond these, the movie manages to make up for these flaws and deliver a fun horror ride of a movie that serves as both a good adaptation of a video game and a stand alone horror. The scares are spot on with the creatures never failing to either disturb or outright creep you out (coming from SILENT HILL this is to be expected) and the sets delivering the right atmosphere of the games. It's nice to note that the movie was done with a budget of almost $20 million only and also the fact that majority of the creature effects were practical ones; the crew behind the visuals of the monstrosities and the titular town deserve praise for making a nightmare come to life with a relatively small budget.

The cast, despite a few of the aforementioned flaws, pull of their roles pretty well; definitely not Oscar level but more than decent for a video game based movie. The story from start to finish is quite thrilling, just as it should be. While it does solve too many of its conflicts in a matter of seconds, it was done in such a way that it isn't that obvious. It takes you on a linear ride that doesn't choose to segway into too many subplots and the like and this was a good choice on part of the writers (with the amount of underused people, subplots may have muddled the pacing).

Video-game based movies are almost always destined to be bad but SILENT HILL: REVELATION manages to, like it predecessor, stay above the crap. It makes itself an exception amongst the others and even works as a stand-alone. The movie could've benefited from a longer running time for character development and investment in the story but it manages to keep itself afloat with good direction and decent story-telling. Whether you're a fan of the games or just someone out for horror movies, give this movie a shot. It's not the best of the lot but it's definitely worth seeing.

1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Lawless (2012)

6/10

Decent and brutal look at the Prohibition Era

25 November 2012

Save for a few, there have been very few movies that take place in the great crime wave that swept the USA during the Prohibition Era released in this decade. And close to none of them didn't take place in a setting that wasn't a big city; every Prohibition movie I know by far was characterized by big cities with gangsters swarming the place and shooting people. LAWLESS is a different take on this familiar subject; not only does it take place in the Southern parts far from the cities but it also presents a dark and brutal look at one of the most romanticized bits of history on film.

That's the strongest point of LAWLESS for me aside from its stellar cast. LAWLESS provides a new and dark look at a really popular subject for period pieces. It was a refreshing take on the whole gangster mythology since I doubt that the "Robin Hood" type gangsters were so perfect in the days even if they did do some charitable stuff. Here we have 1920's bootleggers who aren't opposed to respecting family values and swearing at nearly any given opportunity while delivering brutal punishment. Take note, the movie is a violent take on a familiar topic so if you're not used to that, prepare yourself.

The cast pulls off their roles very well; you can either hate or connect with each character throughout the movie's run time and it actually makes you care for their fates in the end. Shia finally shows off what talent he's got beyond acting alongside CGI robots; while I think he could do better in the future, this isn't a bad start for the young actor. The likes of Guy Pearce could've used a lot more screen time, though.

A problem I had with LAWLESS was its pacing. For some reason, the entire first half was slow and dragging. The exposition and introduction to the story's characters was done in a manner that took its time way too much. This could possibly alienate some viewers as it nearly did to me; I was almost convinced that the movie would end flatly since I couldn't get myself into the movie at first but the movie more than makes up for it by the second half all the way to the end. Things pick up pace and the story moves faster by the halfway point and this is where things begin to get interesting. The ending could've also used some working; for a dark tale, LAWLESS ends on a very clichéd note. I don't know if this was really based on real events and if some liberties were taken while writing the script but the movie ended predictably.

Definitely not the best period piece but one of the better ones made, LAWLESS does its job of telling a brutal tale set during the infamous Prohibition era. If you're the type of person who enjoyed PUBLIC ENEMIES and is waiting in anticipation for GANGSTER SQUAD (which unfortunately is going through a lot of reshoots thanks to the tragedy in THE DARK KNIGHT RISES shooting), you should definitely check out LAWLESS.

LAWLESS won't impress everyone, though; it's not a surefire hit like how something like GODFATHER was. Some may appreciate the new take on a familiar tale while others could be turned off by it. Some would be expecting an action piece while others will be satisfied with the drama involved but in the end, LAWLESS is a film that's definitely worth checking out no matter what your final verdict on it would be.

0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Hell Ride (2008)

2/10

A waste of time

23 November 2012

There are movies that aren't what they seem upon first glance; some may look like generic crap thanks to a badly made trailer when in fact it's a masterpiece waiting to be discovered while others are movies with awesome poster art advertising a piece of crap and making it look nice. HELL RIDE is the one of the latter, and only when it's too late do you find out you were fooled into wasting money and time.

I really tried to like this movie but I just couldn't find it in myself to even appreciate one bit of it. The plot sounded promising (old bikers in what should've been an action-packed grindhouse style movie) but it never made any sense. I tried to understand just what was going on from the start but I ended up failing miserably; the movie's events were messily executed even for a movie that relies on a messed up timeline (ala PULP FICTION) and most of the movie's run time was a complete bore.

Many of the plot elements (especially the drugs sequences which were useless)and characters didn't make sense as they look like they were shoe-horned into the movie just to make a piece of crap look smarter or symbolic or both. The whole movie, by the end credits, was an incomprehensible mess that had something to do with revenge and the biker life.

The cast was a waste of so much potential; here, we have the likes of Michael Madsen and Vinnie Jones just to name a few and while there are a number of cool character concepts, they were all wasted. Throughout the movie we're stuck with the incomprehensible Pistolero who comes across as a middle-aged fat man who's desperately trying to look cool instead of an aging biker gang leader with a dark past. None of the motivations the characters possessed are made even a bit clear just for the sake of comprehending the plot. What we get instead of interesting badass bikers are characters that waste time by spouting random trash dialogue that barely has relevance to the plot.

HELL RIDE is an exercise in waste; not only are a cool concept and a couple of interesting character concepts wasted but so is the viewer's time and patience. I was waiting, hoping that maybe at some point the movie will pick up the pace and redeem itself but as the minutes dragged on, I slowly realized my mistake in gambling on this movie. Don't waste your time; look for something better to watch.

0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Sinister (I) (2012)

8/10

Finally, some real horror

23 November 2012

With posters and trailers promoting SINISTER as a movie from the producers of PARANORMAL ACTIVITY, I had a lot of doubts about it, so many in fact that I decided to skip the theatrical release and just wait for the DVD. I skipped it, expecting the movie to be a complete dud as PARANORMAL was for me (there is no way you can justify video camera footage as horror) but I was gravely mistaken. What I got instead was a horror movie that actually worked because it was done right.

The story is relatively simple; a father on his way to writing a new book finds some home movies stashed up in the attic of his family's new house and said home movies have a lot of dark secrets contained in them which unleash an indescribable horror. Minus the whole part where the evil is unleashed through some old film reels, the plot is something that's been repeated in horror movies ever since something like EVIL DEAD. Even the scares are old fashioned, relying on genre staples (creepy kids, shock value, etc.) and a couple of high pitched chords played at the right moment to deliver the impact.

But these are not flaws at all; in fact, these are what made SINISTER a good horror movie. The thing with SINISTER is that it forgoes all of the new genre tropes that pretty much murdered the genre and opts to go back to old school horror tactics to deliver one of the best horror movies I've seen in recent memory. Even if some parts were predictable, the film never let up on the tension it managed to build up right from the start guaranteeing any scare (predicted or otherwise) to be a shocker.

For anyone who wants a good scare, check out SINISTER. It's a great addition to any horror movie collection as it goes back to genre roots, picks every single good bit that made horror movies the way they were in the day and delivers a good horror movie experience reminiscent of older horror movies while keeping things fresh for the new generation. If you've grown sick of the new "horror" meant for children that's produced en masse these days, look no further and pick up SINISTER.

I don't know how and why it took this long for the horror movie genre to recover but I am grateful to the crew behind SINISTER for reminding me why I fell in love with the genre. By the looks of things, the horror movie genre is going back to what made it great with some pretty interesting entries coming out next year (the EVIL DEAD remake looks promising; watch the trailer) and I guess it's thanks to an old school movie like SINISTER doing well at the box office. I'm thankful to SINISTER for reviving my love for the horror genre just when things were getting murky. I'll definitely be waiting for what these guys will be coming out with next.

2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Total Recall (I) (2012)

4/10

Mediocre at Best

4 November 2012

Due to a busy schedule, I was only able to catch TOTAL RECALL (2012) long after its release date and I was a bit surprised that the remake to one of my favorite Schwarzenegger movies wasn't the total failure I was expecting. But just because it managed to redeem itself doesn't mean that the movie was any good; rather, TOTAL RECALL the remake is one of the most mediocre films I've seen this year.

I wasn't expecting the most original Ridley Scott level sci-fi story from the remake but to call the storyline of the new RECALL as "cliched" is an understatement. The whole movie is a cliché-ridden mess; if you've seen enough sci-fi and action movies, you'll lose track of the number of clichés and tropes you could find if you were to try listing every single one of them down. TOTAL RECALL has every cliché you could think off, from the evil inhuman corporate executive right down to the bomb with a timer. Aside from that, the remake managed to turn the original simple but very entertaining action movie into a flat, cliché-ridden piece that made the fatal mistake of taking itself too seriously (the socio-political themes didn't work out one bit in this movie for me).

The action isn't even worth the price of admission; it feels too watered down(even for a PG-13 movie)to be impressive or even thrilling at the least. Bullets and punches may have been fired and thrown all over the place and car chases are abundant in the movie but never is the adrenaline of any good action movie felt.

The acting, on the other hand, was actually good for an action movie. Colin Ferell plays a believable worker thrown into a complicated situation and for this, TOTAL RECALL gets some points from me. But even if he and the rest of the cast were fairly competent in their acting, the lines that came out of their mouths were anything but that. Good actors can only show their skills well if the script they're working with is good but in this case, good actors were given a mediocre by-the-numbers action movie script. The lines came out as cheesy and forced most of the time (especially the ones that are supposed to make you "think") and almost all of the plot is spoonfed to the audience. You could see the twists coming a mile away since the movie wasn't even intent on keeping them secret; they were just told right off the bat.

Another positive element in the movie was its visualization of the future. While not the most original since almost every future looks like a BLADE RUNNER knock-off these days, at least some of the imagery was striking enough to be remembered. Problem is, though, not all of the scenes were impressive due to the lackluster CGI used. Despite a large budget, most of the scenes looked obviously and painfully fake due to the over-reliance on green-screen effects and the like. Thanks to this, the admittedly interesting future cities aren't engaging at all.

TOTAL RECALL is far from being a total failure but it isn't anything interesting. There are plenty of good sci-fi action movies out there that engage you in their respective universes and make you think/ reflect on certain things while at the same time entertain you with impressive action scenes; this rendition of TOTAL RECALL is not one of those. Watching the new TOTAL RECALL is the equivalent of watching your friend play a video game; it's fun too look at, it looks cool but you don't really care since you're not immersed in the world anyway. It's just eye candy, and not even good or entertaining eye candy at that.

6 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Skyfall (2012)

10/10

The Old Ways are Indeed the Best

3 November 2012

After a long four year wait for the next 007 film to come out due to MGM's financial issues, SKYFALL finally hit cinemas and it was more than worth the wait. It's obvious that the crew behind the movie took a lot of time and effort perfecting what could be considered as the best Bond movie in years. What unfolded before my eyes wasn't just a movie but an experience.

What made SKYFALL great was that it took everything that makes a James Bond movie great (exotic locations, action, a threatening villain, etc.) and improves every single one of them while at the same time adding new ones. SKYFALL finally returns the franchise back to its roots so no longer do we have the boredom and excessive BOURNE influence seen in the previous two installments; this is a James Bond film just like the old days where entertainment and story are balanced. The movie also serves as a love letter to the fans with the numerous references to the old Bond movies and its old-school style; anyone who's seen Bond since the start will love SKYFALL, all the way from the nostalgic theme song opening to the climatic confrontation at the end.

The cast fit their roles perfectly and redefined established characters in the Bond mythology. I have no doubt that Daniel Craig can be a great James Bond but it was only now that he was given a good James Bond script to work with; Bond is still the playboy and efficient MI6 agent but now, he's also a human being. The same goes for the rest of the cast; one of the new things added into the film which was rarely seen in previous Bond films was the complexity of the characters. They're still the usual mainstays of a Bond film (a terrorist mastermind, M, a bureaucrat, the Bond girl, etc.) but now they're all human beings with motivations that drive their actions. They don't rely anymore on simple politics but now they rely on personal issues to drive them. This addition only made the drama of SKYFALL more engaging and believable.

Another addition that I appreciated was the overlying theme of the secret service's relevance in the changing times. Such themes were mentioned off-hand and never fully explored in the Brosnan movies (especially GOLDENEYE) so now that it gets full focus, it helps the movie become more relevant in our time period. The problem with reviving old franchises is the task of making the aged characters work in a time period different from the one they were originally envisioned in; in the case of Bond, he was born in the golden age of espionage of the Cold War but now, in an age that relies more on a computer for intelligence information, those like him have close to no purpose at all. SKYFALL successfully overcomes the problem in a masterful way with its impressive dialogue between the old guard of espionage and the modern age believers. The dialogue between the characters is powerful enough to make even a James Bond fan (like myself) question the franchise's relevance now that the Cold War and the need for spies is long over; what makes the script great is not only in how it will get you involved in the story and its characters but it will definitely make you think and reflect a lot many other things.

My only complaint with SKYFALL was the CGI. The green-screen effects of some scenes were pretty obvious and while it doesn't dent the movie at all, it was a bit distracting and annoying to look at. Hopefully, in the next bond movies, the crew ditches or at least improves the CGI to make things look more realistic. I personally hope they go back to practical effects but that may just be me.

SKYFALL is the best thing that happened to James Bond in the new millennium. By far, this is the most emotional and exciting James Bond in recent memory and none of the drama in the storyline felt forced as everything worked well in the film's context as it did in CASINO ROYALE. Those who are worried that SKYFALL is only a James Bond movie in name will have no reason to fear. SKYFALL is an old-school Bond movie with all the improvements and additions the 2000's could provide and it works well, molding SKYFALL into a masterpiece in the long history of the James Bond franchise. It just goes to show that, indeed, (quoting Kincade in the movie) "Sometimes the old ways are the best."

15 out of 30 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Dredd (2012)

8/10

Close to Action Movie Perfection

23 September 2012

I've never read any of the JUDGE DREDD comics since they're so hard to locate in the country I live in and even if I only had a vague understanding about the Dredd character, I was still able to immensely enjoy DREDD 3D.

Any worries about it being as bad as the Sylvester Stallone vehicle way back in the 90's were all shot down in the opening chase scene. The story is simple and it fulfills its purpose as being the foundation for a good action movie. At least unlike most "action" movies of this decade, the plot doesn't waste time exploring too many character threads like romance or convoluted government conspiracies that slow down the whole movie. Karl Urban nailed the badass character very well and as others have said before me, Urban is Dredd. The rest of the cast do their job well though Ma-Ma could've used some more screen time.

But the main reason why this movie was enjoyable for me was because DREDD 3D is a B-action movie with all upgrades this decade could offer. One-liners, sarcasm, non-stop action, brutality... all of the elements that made the 90's actions movies so great are present here with all of the improvements one could hope for. It's as great a refresher as EXPENDABLES 2 was in a time of PG-13 "action" garbage.

From start to finish the action is as brutal as one could hope for, though it's a bit sad that there isn't enough of this stuff going around in the movie. Instead, what we have are admittedly great visualizations of the Slo-Mo drug but some of these shots were unnecessary even if they looked cool. The 3D effects weren't utilized to their full potential which was a waste since special effects wise, DREDD 3D has some of the best low-budget effects (estimated movie budget is around $45 million only) I've seen. I just wished that the crew behind the movie decided to use more shootouts than Slo-Mo influenced sequences.

DREDD 3D is not the best action movie ever made but so far it's one of the best one one I've seen this year (that and THE RAID). This is how action movies should be and this movie is a godsend. The sad thing is I doubt a sequel will ever be greenlit since by the looks of it, DREDD 3D is going to (at worst) tank at the box office since no matter how cool the movie is, a fanbase dedicated to what some could call a "cult hero" won't be able to salvage DREDD's income. Either that or people have bad memories of the Stallone JUDGE DREDD movie.

Do yourself a favor and watch this movie.

5 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Dark Knight Rises (2012)

10/10

The Grand Finale

19 July 2012

Creating a sequel to THE DARK KNIGHT is one hell of a task even for Christopher Nolan and yet the man manages to finish his version of the Batman stories in what I consider one of the best trilogy/ franchise finales I've seen on screen.

The story is a new take on the cinematic superhero because the focus isn't even on Batman alone. An interesting thing with THE DARK KNIGHT RISES is that it dedicates equal amount of screen time to all the characters, whether main or supporting. This works well in introducing a bunch of new people into the story alongside seeing familiar faces.

The emotional level of the film was also shocking in a good way, which is something I honestly did not expect from a superhero based movie. For once, you do care about what happens to that guy in the background. Even if they are characters derived or based from the comic books, an emotional connection on par with a serious drama movie is made. If THE DARK KNIGHT was a bit depressing, this one amps that all the way to the extreme. Batman here isn't just some superhero out to save the world from some super villain; he's a broken man who feels more than guilty after the events of the past two films and this helps make the overall story a different and welcome take on the superhero concept. This goes for everyone involved in the events that follow 8 years after THE DARK KNIGHT.

As usual, one can rely on Christopher Nolan to deliver heavy drama alongside great action scenes as he did before. The first half of the movie was a bit slow as it focused more on the characters (that's not a bad thing) but quickly builds up from there, climaxing in one hell of a second half that has the fate of the entire city of Gotham at risk. All the way till the end, the balance of emotions and adrenaline is maintained in such a way that you wouldn't even notice the 165 minute time span of the movie.

THE DARK KNIGHT RISES managed to blow THE DARK KNIGHT out of the water. I'll admit that I felt that Bane, while very effective and intimidating, wasn't able to live up to the Joker but that does nothing to change my opinion on the film (and in Tom Hardy's defense, he did say he wasn't trying to outshine Heath Ledger as he just wanted to do his own thing). It is sad that THE DARK KNIGHT SAGA has come to a close but then again, all good things have an end. Through THE DARK KNIGHT RISES, Christopher Nolan delivers a deserving finale to one of the greatest Batman stories ever told.

3 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Lockout (2012)

5/10

A Disappointment

1 July 2012

Imitation is said to be the greatest form of flattery and it shows in LOCKOUT. While it's nice to see a modern-day homage to some old movies, LOCKOUT falls short of becoming a great action film all on its own and ends up succumbing to becoming nothing but a pale shadow of the 80's movies.

I didn't care if the story was basically ESCAPE FROM NEW YORK PLUS DIE HARD IN SPACE; I was still willing to give the movie a shot since the trailers made it look like a hardcore action movie that homages the days of the 80's. In a time of too many superheroes, seeing one man take on a prison with nothing but a gun, his wits and his sarcasm looked promising.

The first half was actually enjoyable. It starts with a well choreographed (but poorly CGI-rendered) chase scene then quickly escalates into the mass break-out of the inmates of the space-bound prison MS-1. The hero, Snow, is presented as an all around badass and he serves as a great throwback to the days of John McClane and his introduction was executed well. His enemies really looked the part as the newly liberated hardened criminals aboard MS-1.

The second half, on the other hand, was a complete waste. The action was really flat, lacking the adrenaline of the opening sequence and the sheer brutality of the films it wanted to homage. The movie also seemed unsure of what genre it should stay in; one moment it's a jailbreak action movie and all of a sudden it shifts into awkward romance territory. At the hands of a better writer this combination of genres might've worked but that's not the case for LOCKOUT. At this point, Snow's witty dialogue gets more forced as the minutes drag on. From being a sarcastic hero, Snow ends up something more like a sitcom character who can't say anything that isn't supposed to be a joke. There was also that unnecessary subplot about government conspiracies that only hindered the plot from advancing at certain points.

And this may just be me, but for a movie set in a prison, the overall feeling was kind of soft. The dialogue implied that there's around 500 or so of the worst criminals from Earth detained in MS-1 and yet the movie only bothers to give focus on a small gang of 10 or something. I was expecting a lot more brutality in the prison but I only got a gang of inmates trying to get a ransom instead of an entire prison population of psychopaths trying to kill the hero.

LOCKOUT had so much promise and potential but sadly, all of this is wasted in this so-so action movie. At most, this movie only warrants a DVD rental to kill a boring afternoon more than anything else.

1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Piranha 3DD (2012)

4/10

Thank god I waited for the DVD

30 June 2012

PIRANHA 3DD is one of those movies that makes you question your own intelligence after watching it. I bought the DVD knowing I was in for a trash-gore horror/ comedy movie but Christ, I didn't expect it to be this bad.

The dialogue is bad, the acting is flat and the "scares" suck. For a horror movie, the scares were not only predictable (which is still a bit forgivable) but really bland. It's only now I remember being this bored at the sight of excessive blood. Also the fan-service was more annoying than anything; I may be a guy but I want a HORROR movie, not a cheap horror movie spliced into an episode of "Girls Gone Wild." I remember the times when horror movies had more blood and actual horror instead of mentally challenged large-breasted girls running around like idiots.

If there's one thing the movie got right, it's the comedy. I wasn't laughing all throughout but the cameos from Ving Rhames and David Hasselhoff were fun while they lasted. A couple of jokes got me but that's it. You know there's a problem with a horror movie when the end-credits montage of gags and jokes is more entertaining than the whole damn movie.

I'm really thankful I waited for the DVD release of this movie instead of watching it on the big screen. The only consolation I got was the fact that I didn't spend as much after watching that disaster called GHOST RIDER: SPIRIT OF VENGEANCE and LOCKOUT.

4 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Prometheus (I) (2012)

9/10

Delivers as Promised and More

10 June 2012

I don't remember being this excited over a movie in a long time and by god, Ridley Scott's return to sci-fi PROMETHEUS is as close as we could get to a modern day masterpiece.

PROMETHEUS does as promised in the ad campaign and fan expectations; it serves as a semi-prequel to ALIEN but it's also a standalone story by itself. It delivers the space-bound horror in true old-school fashion similar to the original ALIEN; you don't really know what's killing the cast but it's still the stuff of nightmares. But what really impressed me was that the movie does a lot more than that.

The film throws in some existentialist themes that fit in the storyline and don't seem forced. Other films try to do this and instead of sounding deep, they look stupid. PROMETHEUS on the other hand does it seamlessly; nothing is shoved down your throat and no one idea is shown to be better than the other. Mysteries are dropped left and right; not everything may be answered by the end but as one character said in the film, the answers may be irrelevant. What I really liked about this film was it got me thinking a lot even by the time the credits rolled. Sure, connections to the ALIEN universe MAY help answer a few questions and speculations but there is no definite answer. It's really up to the viewer to figure out some parts for themselves. In a time when every answer and plot detail is served on a silver platter and very few movie makers want to make the audience think, PROMETHEUS stands out and confuses you and leaves you asking a lot of questions... and you'll love every second of it.

Visually the movie was engaging; what you'll see on screen is one of the most beautiful yet haunting settings ever imagined. It's also interesting to note that a good number of the places on screen were actually sets, not purely CGI. I've always had a thing for practical effects over CGI ones and the ones used in PROMETHEUS do not fail to awe. The world's desolation and hidden horrors come to life in one hell of a planet.

The cast did their parts really well (props to Rapace, Theron and Pearce) and as mentioned by a lot of people before me, the character David (Fassbender) stands out in particular. What's interesting for me is the fact that there is no one definite protagonist. The whole film could be Dr. Shaw's story of discovery as much as a story focused on David. The only comment I could give about the cast was that I wish Theron and the rest got a bit more screen time since their characters were all engaging.

Another very minor problem for me was the soundtrack placing. Yes, I agree, the score was beautiful but it popped up in some of the most inappropriate moments but this does little to hinder what I feel is the best sci-fi film I've seen since DISTRICT 9.

PROMETHEUS is a god-send; it's one of the few movies in recent memory that got me so pumped up I actually wanted to save money just to watch this on the big screen instead of waiting for the DVD release. Close to 30 years may have passed since Ridley Scott made a sci-fi film and yet he still shows us he's got the skills. It's horrifying, intriguing and makes you think a lot.

If you watched ALIEN from the start or you just love sci-fi, you should see this; it's really worth the wait. If you're new to it, you're still in for one hell of a sci-fi film. Sure, there are a lot of people claiming that this was a "disappointment," "a complete failure," "amateurish," etc. but rest assured these are false. These kinds of reactions always pop up when some popular movie comes out... just look at the reactions that THE DARK KNIGHT, THE AVENGERS and INCEPTION got among others; expect these kinds of reactions every time a good movie comes out (case in point: THE DARK KNIGHT RISES). There will always be someone out there saying that "X movie is such a rip-off of Y" or something along the lines of "OMG this is the worst movie EVAR" and the like.

PROMETHEUS delivers one the best sci-fi stories ever put on the big screen; so far it's one of the best movies of the year and you won't regret watching it. It's worth the money, the long wait and the experience.

9 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Men in Black³ (2012)

8/10

Back in Style

28 May 2012

It's been nearly 4 years since Will Smith appeared on the big screen and an even longer time since the last Men In Black sequel (2002 if memory serves me right) but here they are, back in style.

While it may have been some time since Will Smith's acted in an action film (where he should stay, in my opinion), he proves that he's still got it in the third part of the memorable MIB franchise. He pulls off the wise-ass Agent J perfectly (just like old times) and he didn't fail to amuse me over the course of the film's running time. The whole cast did their parts well (especially Boris) but it was Josh Brolin who surprised me; the man was the spitting image of a younger Tommy Lee Jones. He pulled it off so well I honestly thought there had to be some sort of CGI magic or dubbing done but no, it was all Brolin and he pulled off a younger Agent K good. My only problem was that Tommy Lee Jones, who's as important to the franchise as Will Smith is, barely got enough screen time. Yes, it's part of the story that J meets a younger K and yes, Tommy Lee Jones is getting a bit too old for these kinds of movies but I just miss seeing him alongside Will Smith for an entire MIB movie. This however, does little to hinder the film's enjoyment factor.

The story is well written. Time travel is one of the more complicated story devices to use since if messed up, plot holes will appear everywhere. Thankfully, the movie writers took their time (10 years is no joke for both fans and producers), edited the crap out of their drafts and ended up with a good time travel movie along with a nice surprise ending. As usual, the comedic banter between mostly everybody and Agent J was done well but everybody gets to say something witty that isn't out of place in the story's setting. What really got me was the emotional factor that was added into the leads' partnership. Sure, we've seen them fight aliens and save the world in the past two movies but it's only now their partnership has become this emotional. Part 3 of the MIB series returns to the series roots and uses what made part 1 so great in the first place; a healthy balance of action, sci-fi, comedy and emotional content.

The CGI, to some, would look outdated (and to some extent it is) but this wasn't a problem for me. Instead, what the CGI did was usher in a feeling of nostalgia since it really looks like something from the late 90's when movies were just starting to incorporate computer graphics. Though for an MIB movie, there were surprisingly few aliens but that's just a minor problem. I guess that this time around, the story was really centered on the two main characters and not so much on what makes the universe so weird and cool (though I do miss the talking dog). Again, I dodged the 3D screening so I can't say anything about the 3D version.

MIB3 is a good watch; it returns to the series' roots and not only succeeds in making a movie so reminiscent of what made the 90's action films so great (balanced comedy, action and drama... and no fancy camera tricks like "shaky cam") but also threw in a new dynamic between the two main characters. I'm not sure if this will usher in a part four (and part 3 feels a bit like a series finale to me but that's just my opinion) but if it does, I hope the writers, again, take their time in perfecting the script since even if part 3 took an entire decade of waiting, it was well worth the wait.

2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Cabin in the Woods (2011)

10/10

One for the horror fans

4 May 2012

It has literally been years since the horror genre had something nice to offer, with crap security camera footage "films" dominating the landscape (crap like PARANORMAL ACTIVITY) after the demise of the once mighty torture porn (SAW and the rest). Just when horror fans like me began to lose hope, along comes THE CABIN IN THE WOODS which plays as both a tribute and a subtle parody of the horror genre.

The basic plot is basically a copy-paste version of EVIL DEAD; some teens go to a cabin in the woods to party and then cue the ancient unspeakable horror. If you think that's bland, remember that the trailers made it obvious that there was something more to this bare bones plot and by god, there IS a lot more than just a bunch of teens getting high and drunk in some run down shack. If you haven't seen the trailers prior to the film, well let's just say you're in for a lot of twists and turns. To say anymore about this could end up spoiling more than one detail so I'll just say that the plot is a lot smarter than you could expect.

While it does pay tribute and homage to an old, tried and tested genre, the movie doesn't fail to be both funny and horrifying. It does more than just play out the genre conventions straight. The script is dotted with moments of random dark humor that work in the story's context. The dialogue points out some flaws and stereotypes of the genre but it never does it in an "In your FACE!!" way similar to say, SCREAM (not to say it's bad); it's really subtle so if you know the conventions, you'll get the jokes. The characters may act in their stereotypical ways but for once this is actually justified. Every little bit of the genre that made it more of a joke as the decades went by is given justification and it works.

The horror is old school; kill shots, decapitations, nightmarish creatures, etc... none of that kill shot cutting seen a lot in PG-13 garbage or the shaky camera crap seen way too many times. This is a HORROR movie so people die on screen, not off screen like today's "horror" which are too scared to show even a drop of blood. Visually it may not be the most impressive collection of on-screen kills ever imagined but in a time when almost everything is being marketed to children, this is more than a refresher.

THE CABIN IN THE WOODS is really for the horror fans; it's for people who've grown up with the likes of Freddy Kruger and have grown weary of today's "horror." It's not only a fright-fest, it's a lot smarter than one could expect and it works. If you're new to the genre or you don't really like it, you'll either get it or not. Otherwise if you like horror movies with some sort of passion, you'll like this one.

81 out of 161 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Avengers (2012)

10/10

Simply Perfect

28 April 2012

I can not say anything more about THE AVENGERS; the movie just hit all the right spots and a lot more. It didn't only entertain like how a brainless popcorn movie would; it told a great superhero team story.

The characters were written perfectly, the action was spectacular and best of all ever character was a joy to watch. The story had the perfect balance of comedy, action and drama (yes, there's a bit of that too and it's good). It's everything a comic book fan would want out of a comic book adaptation movie.

Every member of the Avengers line-up (whether super powered or not) got the right amount of screen time; if you were like me and thought that Iron Man would get accidentally hog the screen because the trailers made the movie look like "IRON MAN AND FRIENDS," your fears will be washed away. Mark Ruffalo also stole the show as Banner/ The Hulk; if you had a few doubts about him playing the character after Edward Norton was left behind, fear not since he does the job well. I can go as far as saying that Ruffalo is the best incarnation of Banner so far.

Josh Whedon pulled off the impossible; he wrote and directed a perfect comic book adaptation. He created what I consider the best superhero movie so far. He made THE AVENGERS.

To say anything more would be a waste of time. Just go and watch it.

28 out of 57 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Battleship (2012)

4/10

Nice to look at and nothing more

19 April 2012

No one was expecting Hollywood would so be s*** out of ideas and turn a board game into a movie but in the end we have BATTLESHIP, a movie based on the classic board game involving taking down your enemy's entire fleet through luck and grid reference. But this one has aliens which were strangely absent in the original source material.

Ridiculous as it sounds on paper, BATTLESHIP was made and here we have a passable summer time killer.

The special effects in the movie are impressive; I watched a regular screening so I can't say much for the 3D. The combat between Earth's naval ships and the alien machines was done well though it wasn't as tense as one could hope for. They're just nice to LOOK at; there's no sense of urgency or dread when the guns are loaded or when the enemy ships arm their missiles. The editing in the action scenes was a bit choppy but thankfully this does little to hinder the fact that they're nice to look at.

The movie wasn't advertised as having a thought provoking story or anything serious; the crew behind the movie knew that they made it to be nothing more than a popcorn movie that doesn't take itself seriously which is why unlike CLASH OF THE TITANS the special effects don't seem to be a hindrance to the simple story. Though I just wish someone took the time to improve the alien design which looked like it was cheaply ripped off from a video game.

But the story itself isn't even worth mentioning; sure, it's a simple alien invasion but that's about all it is, there's nothing more to it. There's no character development, it's extremely predictable and it seems amateurish. There were some good laughs here and there and bits of what could've been character development but never are they expanded. Even for a simple alien invasion movie the dialogue the characters said seemed forced; never do they connect to the audience in some way so when someone goes down or when someone's in danger, you don't feel anything. The writers tried to make things sound more intelligent than they have to and look at the end result; you have a bunch of flat characters spouting unnecessary profound crap.

The script is just bad; it looks like it was written by a kid who thought that the "cool stuff" (video game looking aliens, cheesy dialogue meant to sound deep, witty one-liners, etc.) should be added into the movie and that's why those were there. Cheap and cheesy dialogue makes the already flat cast of characters even more uninteresting; try not to groan while watching any of the "romantic" scenes or the obligatory patriotic scenes as seen in any movie made involving the military.

I'll admit, I was expecting BATTLESHIP to be total crap but I'm slightly thankful it didn't turn out to be the complete waste of money and time I was expecting but that isn't saying much. All the movie turned out to be was a popcorn movie that couldn't even entertain me all through out its run time. In the end, BATTLESHIP is a corny and clichéd movie (to describe it this way is being lenient) that relies on action sequences to draw in an audience. This movie didn't really feel like an alien invasion summer flick, it felt more like a 90 minute ad for a board game.

114 out of 215 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Hunger Games (2012)

5/10

Overrated Below Average Stuff

8 April 2012

Warning: Spoilers

First off, let me start by admitting that I've never read the source materials for this movie; I just watched it with a few friends to kill some boredom so I'll be talking about how good or bad I found THE HUNGER GAMES as a movie, not as an adaptation. And yes, I saw BATTLE ROYALE and while there ARE some similar plot details, I won't rant about how "X is such a copy of Y." I'm fine with similar plots as nothing tends to be original these days.

Prior to watching the movie, I've read reviews online mentioning that this was a great watch. IMDb gave it a score in the range of 7 to 8 on its opening days before settling down at the range of 7.7 when I last checked, which is pretty high. So I went into the cinema not expecting a masterpiece but something entertaining at the least; that's all I wanted. I just wanted to kill a boring weekend.

And kill a boring weekend it did, but that's about all it accomplished. THE HUNGER GAMES may have been a good time waster but it's only a below average movie that got too much hype.

On the good side, THE HUNGER GAMES does manage to have a compelling first half. Prior to the titular "Hunger Games," we get to spend nearly half the movie's running time with the heroine Katniss, who is a good protagonist at that. In a time where story is forgotten in favor of CGI and crappy action, an entire first half devoted to characters is something I more than welcome. This is not bad since we get to spend some time with our heroine and see what's become of society at this point. The setting of the story is also interesting enough to draw some attention; while not the most original in recent memory it still serves its purpose of justifying the injustices going on in the story.

Problem is beyond those, I don't really see how this movie was described as "the best movie of 2012 so far." The camera-work is just bad; at this point in time I'm really sick and tired of "shaky-cam" movies or whatever the hell you call it. I don't want to watch a documentary or some indie cinema crap full of "realism," I want a MOVIE where the camera doesn't look like it's having a seizure every 5 seconds. There was also no tension anywhere in the movie. The premise is enough to convince someone that this would be a thrilling ride at the least but all we get are forced romance scenes and bad "action." The good build-up of the first half (the introduction to the training) was wasted in the titular games since it ended up being more of a drag than a thrill. The only emotions I could get from the characters was either romance or joy in killing. There was no sense of fear or dread or desperation; just a naive sense of good guys and bad guys.

The dialogue is as predictable as one could expect from a young adult story. Most of the lines that are full of profound messages (especially in the climax of the titular games) seem weird coming from Katniss who's supposed to be a teenager. Maybe it's the actress' fault for not delivering them well or maybe it's the script's fault for being too preoccupied with making things deeper than they have to be but either way, most of the lines didn't work. Also the love aspect of the movie wasn't done well; it seemed forced into the story simply because of obligation. Out of the blue a story of survival became a romantic one. The transition could've been done well but like most of the movie, it seemed rushed.

The worst part of the film are the characters. The morality of the story is too black and white to be believable. The people of the Capitol and the contestants who got too into the games are, well, the bad guys. Never do they get justifications for their motives nor do they get any redeeming qualities; all they do is sneer and jeer at the heroes, kill for the fun of it and be a hindrance to the romance. Examples are that girl who just had to have a speech of how fun killing an innocent and peaceful girl was and the exaggerated obliviousness of the Capitol's people that drove this point in. The morality could've been improved to make things more emotional and engaging for the movie but then again, everything was dumbed down for the target audience.

Overall THE HUNGER GAMES is a movie for the young adults bracket of the audiences. It's full of the things that apparently make a movie good these days: shaky-cam, theme song from a famous pop band, romance, young stars, etc. But for everyone else I'd suggest waiting for something else to come out. There's no tension here and everything else seems forced. Maybe if you were a teenager this thing would be as thrilling as advertised. While THE HUNGER GAMES is definitely NOT the worst movie, there are other movies that pulled off the same plot but in a better and more entertaining way.

3 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance (2011)

3/10

The Rider Deserves Better

18 February 2012

Warning: Spoilers

First of all, I went in the cinema expecting nothing but trashy fun. When the trailer came out, it was obvious that this movie wasn't aiming to be the next THE DARK KNIGHT or something of that caliber. This thing was created by the guys behind CRANK and it features Ghost Rider pissing flames,for Christ's sake! All I wanted was a simple/ excuse story loaded with insanity driven action and over all craziness to satisfy the boring weekend afternoon. I didn't want a masterpiece, I just wanted something as crazy and enjoyable as the CRANK films only this time starring Ghost Rider.

Well, apparently, I couldn't even have that.

At first glance, the CRANK team and the Rider looked like a perfect match if the trailers were to be judged (and in my opinion they were) yet for some reason the movie failed badly. Majority of the film was a total bore with poorly delivered dialogue, flat acting and nerfed action scenes (coming from the CRANK guys I kind of expected more brutality but hey, it's another PG-13 movie for the kids). The only time I felt excitement that lasted more than a few seconds while watching the film was during the final chase scene where Ghost Rider chases the final bad guy in a series of well choreographed highway fights. The ending on the other hand, is easily the worst part of the film; to avoid spoiling anything important, I'll just say the ending killed the entire purpose of the Ghost Rider character.

The movie had some nice ideas (the animations, some lines in the script, the interpretation of the main character, the action scenes, the weird insanity montage when Blaze pulled Ghost Rider out of his body, etc.) but these are not enough to even make the movie a guilty pleasure kind of deal. Instead all that's left is a lot of wasted potential in what could possibly be the worst film of the year (unless WRATH OF THE TITANS, BREAKING DAWN 2, BATTLESHIP or any of the SNOW WHITE movies manage to beat this one). Maybe if the studio allowed the directors to REALLY go all out (the kid-friendly PG-13 rating killed most of the action) or maybe if they got better writers the movie could've stood a chance at being a passable popcorn flick. I don't know what could've been but it's too late to even guess since I doubt there'll be a sequel for this movie.

Unless you want to see a good reason why the PG-13 rating is bad for some characters or a good reason to waste your money, don't watch this. The titular character deserves so much more than this pathetic excuse of a movie.

3 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Thing (I) (2011)

8/10

A great companion to Carpenter's film

5 November 2011

When news broke out that John Carpenter's THE THING was getting a prequel, all I could expect was a disaster. I've seen the recent prequel of Texas CHAINSAW MASSACRE and the crappy reboot of A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET and based on those two I could only expect the worst from a prequel of THE THING. Since horror movies haven't been that impressive in this decade for some reason (and I really miss good horror), I was pessimistic when my friends wanted me to watch the 2011 THE THING with them.

Apparently it was a good decision on my part to watch the film.

Long story short, THE THING works well as a companion to Carpenter's version. The prequel manages to maintain the tension and paranoia of trying to figure out who the alien lifeform infected; thankfully this part of the film isn't predictable at all. The cast was great and the creature designs were as monstrous and hideous as the 1982 version's. The pacing was sped up a bit and this is a welcome addition to the continuity of the story. But the best part of this prequel is that it was able to connect and explain every little detail about the events that happened in the Norwegian outpost briefly shown in the 1982 film (the scene that stands out in particular for me is the ending credits sequence linking the prequel to the opening events of Carpenter's film).

The writers were able to make the story make sense and fit in the continuity of Carpenter's film without sacrificing any of the tense atmosphere for fanservice or excessive gore as many modern prequels do. Up until the end, THE THING did not fail to disturb and scare me a little which is a feeling I've been missing for a long time.

My only problems with the film are minor ones such as the CGI; as I said earlier it wasn't bad and in contrast I actually loved the creature designs but said creatures looked way too fake in some parts to drive in the fear accomplished by Carpenter's film. Instead of looking like the flesh-absorbing monstrosities they were imagined as, what we got resembled video game bosses thanks to the CGI. Another problem was the character of the scientist Dr. Halversen (Ulrich Thomsen) since unlike the rest of the cast, he was just a cookie cutter stereotype. Again like nearly every science fiction movie that involves a monstrosity that's clearly slaughtering the entire cast we have a jerk who wants to capture it alive all in the name of science.

So overall THE THING is a fantastic horror movie with very minor setbacks. I'm not saying this is better than John Carpenter's masterpiece but rather it's simply on par with it; it's that good for me. It kept me guessing and scared all throughout its running time. In a drought of decent horror movies as horror movies these days tend to lean on the side of films that are desperately trying to look smarter than they should (the latter SAW sequels) or are just simply bad (PARANORMAL ACTIVITY), THE THING stands out as a nice return to the likes of monster movies and gore that were so popular/ notorious in the 80's. Watch it for a good Halloween fright or simply for the fun of getting scared.

3 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Captain America: The First Avenger (2011)

6/10

Campy fun

5 November 2011

The famous Avenger Capt. America finally gets a movie and it isn't bad at all. After a long time of waiting, the character's fans finally get to see the patriotic hero on the big screen given justice and more.

The story itself is really simple; some do gooder super-soldier fights Nazis or a Nazi Party look alike by name of HYDRA, YAY. But is that a bad thing? Nope. Instead of being a bland story it acts more as a homage to the pulpy action stories of the Golden Age of comic book heroes where they were clean cut good guys fighting bad guys with world domination on their minds. The better part is that the film actually adds more to the simple story by having well written characters; I honestly do not like Capt. America the character that much since he's way too patriotic for my tastes but this incarnation of the Capt. is well done as he is more of a good intentioned "kid from Brooklyn" who was given the chance to serve his country. The cast isn't as flat as one would expect from a story this simple and they do their part in helping move the story along.

The action though wasn't as good as I expected. I can forgive the fact that the some of the action (soldiers just running at their opponents guns blazing without any sense of strategy) and even the enemy soldiers looked too cartoonish to properly fit a World War II setting (hey it's abased on a comic book) but the action, which was used sparingly in the film, wasn't impressive at all. I wish I could've seen the Captain fling his mighty shield more often like he does in the comics or even more gun based action on part of the regular soldiers on both sides; maybe that would've been better. Also, more screen time for the badass Howling Commandos would've been appreciated since I highly doubt that they would return in any CAPT. America sequels as the sequels will most probably be set in modern times.

So yes, while it's not the best of the AVENGERS movie "prequels" (THE INCREDIBLE HULK is still the worst for me and the first IRON MAN is the best) CAPT. America does its job of entertaining the audience and setting up the future Avenger's story. The film doesn't have much to set it apart from other superhero movies but it's a decent one nonetheless (though I have to admit that superhero movies are getting kind of tedious for me). If this is the start of a franchise for the character, then this serves as a good start for any future Capt. America adventures.

1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Ward (2010)

5/10

John Carpenter returns with average results

2 August 2011

After a long time horror movie master John Carpenter returns to the big screen with THE WARD. Needless to say it's a lot better than his last outing (GHOSTS OF MARS) but this isn't a HALLOWEEN.

On the plus side, the movie's atmosphere is effectively created via its location and music. Camera angles were very reminiscent of Carpenter's older works and this was a nice touch since the new "hyper-realistic" documentary style of today is getting overused.

On the negative side, THE WARD's main letdown is its predictability. As long as anyone knows enough horror movies, the plot isn't much of a shocker. The script felt bland and flat; the cast just said their lines, acted scared and that's it. The script was nothing memorable nor offensively stupid; it was just there.

In terms of scares, only a few scenes were effective in doing their job. The majority of the scare tactics were old-school and while some worked others didn't. Maybe it's because Carpenter's style IS kind of old and the new decade has ushered in new styles of scaring people or something or that the film was a homage to the old style of horror; whatever the case the scares were at most average.

In the end THE WARD is sadly just another horror movie; it would actually be kind of hard to make it stand out amongst the many similar horror movies out there in both the big screen and direct-to-DVD market if not for John Carpenter's name on the title and the obviously better budget. I was expecting a bit more if not a lot from John Carpenter but I wasn't completely disappointed. If John Carpenter (hopefully) decides to make at least one more film after this, I just hope it would keep the atmosphere of THE WARD but improve on the story and scares.

1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

True Grit (2010)

10/10

In defense of TRUE GRIT (2010)

22 June 2011

TRUE GRIT is one of those rare films that I can give nothing but praise; if anything it's one of the few films in last year's Best Picture list that was actually worth watching. Hell it deserved to win at least one academy award at the Oscar's.

The acting was superb with every single cast member fleshing out there characters and making them even more believable than any other cast in a movie released in the same year. Jeff Bridges did one hell of a job as the washout Rooster Cogburn alongside newcomer Hailee Steinfeld as Mattie Ross and Matt Damon the Texas Ranger LaBouef. While effective given what little screen time he had, I honestly wanted to see more of Josh Brolin as Tom Cheney but then again, you can't get everything you want. Character development was very good as young Mattie Ross' story of revenge unfolded against the backdrop of the violent West with the dialog helping cement just that.

Visually, everything fell into place; it wasn't hard to believe that the life in the frontier looked that nice but was hell to live in with criminals running about. Other small details such as music and costume design were spot on and did little to hinder the fact that the movie captured the feel of the classic cinematic West. Admittedly the pacing was slow but this paid off since this helped emphasize the feel of actual frontier life when chasing a criminal; boredom in between gunfights with lots of waiting. Action scenes are drawn out in between and in place of blazing gunfights we get character driven scenes which made the characters all the more human.

Don't get me wrong, the 1969 version with John Wayne as the lead was great and I do love me a good John Wayne film but this version of TRUE GRIT simply stands out since it was able to make a mark of its own; it didn't succumb to being under the shadow of a classic and instead chose its own path.

The only reason why I'm writing this is because for some reason, a lot of people hate it; obviously there's a lack of people who support it. I don't know if it's true for all people who've seen this film but seriously, why all the hate? I've read some forums mentioning that the Coen's TRUE GRIT is nothing compared to the John Wayne version due to a massive lack of gun fights and Rooster Cogburn screen time as the lead, others saying that the film was a total disappointment because of something as trivial as bad CGI backgrounds or slow pacing and debates questioning the possibility of a 400 yard gun shot. Speculations that Paramount Studios paid critics to say good things about the film were also rampant; all of a sudden the Coen brothers who've delivered crazy but great cult classics like THE BIG LEBOWSKI and FARGO are now too mainstream to appreciate. Maybe it's because it's cool to hate pretty much everything that's doing well on the internet right now as seen in the hype backlash against THE DARK KNIGHT and INCEPTION or maybe it's just because people are bored; I don't know.

Sure, for a Coen Brothers film TRUE GRIT was pretty shallow, simple and straight forward even after they made a name for themselves by creating unique genre busting films and the fact that it was a PG-13 film didn't help much but the duo still managed to do what they do best; make a good film that's more than worth your money.

Bottom line is if you don't like a slow paced Western and prefer the fast paced action ones, go ahead and watch TOMBSTONE or the 2007 version of 3:10 TO YUMA and the like; they're both good films that have heavy emphasis on action balanced with story. There's nothing wrong with liking an action filled Western since everybody has their own tastes that we should respect. But if you are the kind who can stomach a long, sometimes dragging film and trade all the action for good drama and character development, then TRUE GRIT is for you. Comparisons WILL be made with the John Wayne film but don't let the Duke's greatness blind you from seeing a good film. Go buy it on DVD.

7 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides (2011)

5/10

Pale and flat compare to the predecessors

30 May 2011

PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: ON STRANGER TIDES is the latest addition to a franchise that I personally think ended at part three. In one word, the whole film was forced. But to say it was bad solely on the fact that it was forced is being too rash, rather it was actually fine when compared to most any other sequel (TERMINATOR SALVATION, anyone?). Overall, the film was mediocre.

The plot takes liberty in setting up a new adventure for Jack Sparrow since things seemed wrapped up in AT WORLD'S END and while this looks promising, it's not. The expedition to the Fountain of Youth is admittedly interesting on paper since this would branch deeper into pirate lore but what we get instead is a mash up of random ideas most probably thought up by kids. Ranging from vampire mermaids, zombies, a flamthrower ship that isn't even used that much again after its introduction and flying ropes of doom (easily the worst weapon on screen in years), the creativity that once surrounded the POTC franchise with so much intrigue and mystique has been thrown out the window in favor of kid-friendly crap (the Kraken and Barbossa's skeleton crew were definitely not kid friendly).

The characters didn't help much; even Depp who as always plays an effective character on screen can't do much to salvage the film from already being a disappointment. The rest of the cast all seem to be cartoon characters from a TV show about pirates stuck into a live action movie; either that or they were forgettable. Instead of pirates, we get joke characters who rely on humor or two dimensional villainy to make their presence felt. Barbossa has degraded as a character compared to his previous appearances but was still fun to watch while Angelica just wasn't engaging enough.

The worst offender has to be Blackbeard; when compared to Davy Jones, he could've been a wonderful contrast to the otherworldly Jones since he would just be a normal human being who was feared by everyone on the high seas. He could've been the pirate world's answer to the end of the supernatural age that ended when Davy Jones died but instead we get a clichéd, two dimensional old man who's trying desperately to be the villain. Blackbeard just appears in the scene acting evil; all he does on screen is flaunt about how weak the good are, how awesome he is as the bad guy and that's it. Thanks to this his actions are pretty predictable right up to the end.

Even the action wasn't much; I don't mind the fact that there are no ship battles anymore since the story concentrates on the expedition on an island but watching a bunch of stunts isn't that exciting. To make matters worse, the music seemed recycled. I know this is a small detail, but it was the music that made the first three films come to life and now that they're just recycling them, the magic is lost.

The film does have its moments though, some in humor, good dialogue or in a decent action sequence or two but overall the film was still a big disappointment. As a fan of the original trilogy, I feel that while this film still manages to maintain the feel and spirit of a PIRATES film, it was a downer. There was so much potential in the premise and the characters but in the end, all those element just couldn't add up and make a great film. If all you want is a time waster, then go ahead and check this out. Otherwise, stay away from it.

0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Thor (2011)

7/10

A decent surprise

30 May 2011

Thor (or "The Mighty Thor" as some would call him) is admittedly and personally one of the most uninteresting characters in the MARVEL universe. Not only does he lack any good opposition in his villains but there's only so much a writer can do with an established Norse God turned comic book superhero. In the hands of the wrong team, a THOR movie adaptation could've been equally bad but thankfully this is averted in the case of 2011's THOR.

The movie is pretty much straight to the point, serving as an introduction to the future Avenger and it does its job well. The film thankfully decides to avoid side stories that could've bogged down the story and concentrated on Thor's story alone, ranging from his family problems in his home Asgard and romance on Earth. A small problem with being straight forward is that the film was a bit predictable since it still followed a typical superhero plot (redemption, save the girl, etc.) but this does little to bog down the fact that the film is enjoyable.

The characters are thankfully not as two dimensional as the trailer implied since they're a lot deeper than what one may expect, especially Loki. The whole cast did their part but it was Loki that really stood out for me. Loki could've been a boring one note villain but instead we get a conflicted god trying to prove himself worthy to everyone. Though everyone did play their roles well, not everyone got a balanced amount of screen time, which if done would've made them more engaging.

The action, on the other hand, is kind of weak. Not to say it wasn't bad but it failed to maximize the 3D which, again like most other 3D film out right now, seemed unnecessary. It was rather interesting to see how a hammer would fare against a spear and the like and believable melee weapon choreography IS hard to accomplish so points to the film's team for making it as real as possible without compromising the fun out of it.

Overall, THOR serves its purpose as an introduction to just who the mighty Avenger really is. If some other team made the film adaptation of the character, the end result could've been another DAREDEVIL; we may never know. But what's important is THOR lives up to the bar set by IRON MAN back in 2008; this looks like it's going to be a good decade for MARVEL studios and the rest of Stan Lee's creations.

Again, wait for the credits to roll. There's a stinger there leading up to THE AVENGERS

1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Hobo with a Shotgun (2011)

10/10

The best R-rated grindhouse film I've seen

17 April 2011

HOBO WITH A SHOTGUN... with a title like that it's obvious that no one should take the movie seriously and just have a fun time watching it. If you were able to see the fake trailer that was featured with the Tarantino/Rodriguez team-up GRINDHOUSE then you know what to expect. For those who haven't, all you're waiting for is a no holds barred action packed gore fest.

While movies like MACHETE successfully bring back the grindhouse days, they fall to trying to look more serious than they have to (MACHETE had an out of place immigration message). Thankfully HOBO avoids this with ease. I don't know if the director had some underlying message about the homeless here but it isn't the focus of the film and that's a good thing; the main focus of the film is the gore, action and the overall 70's vibe.

HOBO doesn't bow down to the censors, unleashing as much bloody mayhem as possible in its short running time (roughly one hour and twenty minutes) and that's what makes it so memorable (at least for me). In a time when every single film has to be family friendly, stuff like HOBO WITH A SHOTGUN stand out and deliver the goods to the starving R-rated movie loving audience.

The characters are all great, the psychopaths of Scum City are all properly unhinged and bloodthirsty and Rutger Hauer's rendition of HOBO is a lot more effective than Dave Brunt's already awesome Hobo in the original fake trailer. The story is very simple (vigilante vs a crime lord) but that's not a problem here as it only helps invoke the proper vigilante film feel.

Overall this movie knows how to have fun... R-rated fun at that but still entertaining. Though it's kind of sad to know that this film will end up more as a cult classic instead of a high-grossing R-rated film like most of Tarantino's works (and HOBO deserves the income), it's not only worth checking out but it's a definite must watch especially if you're part of the aforementioned R-rated loving audience.

1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

darkraven_109

Reviews

Tell Your Friends

Recently Viewed