Change Your Image
silkshadow
Reviews
Justice League: Gods and Monsters (2015)
Bait and switch, not a Justice League movie.
This movie is simply bait and switch. It claims to be a Justice League movie but its not. You will see the names Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman, but none of those names attach to anyone you recognize. Instead this is some wannabe auteur's desire to inflict on this fan base their "creativity". That would be fine if this franchise were a TV show still, but its not, it's a movie from a franchise I look forward to and get very little of.
Recently, this franchise has had 2 movies ("War" and "Throne of Atlantis") that brought back the feel of continuity. The feeling that these movies were continuing a story instead of being single one-off experiences and I was extremely happy to see that.
Following that up with this self-indulgent garbage and I can't help but feel cheated. I only hope this is a singular mistake and not a trend.
Battleship (2012)
Possibly low expectations make this enjoyable. It did for me.
I don't go to see movies in the theater much anymore. Its usually a disappointment on those rare instances when I do. However, this movie has a couple tings going for it. One is that I saw it for free.
The other is that I went in expecting to walk out feeling I had wasted my time. I mean, the vast majority of movies with a music star's debut have sucked. Probably because adding a hot music star gives you cover for a bad movie? I don't know. Add in a movie based on a very old board game? Well, then you have me going into it expecting total suckitude. Well, its certainly not a great movie by any suspension of expectations, however its not pure suck. Truth is my surprise that it didn't suck is probably driving the score I gave it, but I enjoyed this film.
No, there was nothing we haven't seen before, and many times. No, the acting wasn't a stand out in any way, though a script with mostly yelling doesn't give much room for quality acting. No the effects weren't outstanding. There was no real story in this movie, it really is a kind of expanded story of the board game.
If that sounds like suckitude, well, it should. However, this movie was a fun ride for me. The battle scenes and effects, while not outstanding were good in that generic way. The cheese factor was high, but it didn't have me running for the exit. I don't know what happened, but I do believe that walking in with extremely low expectations can make this film an enjoyable mindless experience. Anyway, it did for me what can I say?
The Last Airbender (2010)
This is what self hate produces
Its funny, my intention coming here was to pan this movie, but its been done so many times here already, and with much more scathing wit than I can produce, its a waste of time. So let me just say what a terrible movie!
Instead I will talk about the controversy. I should say that I liked the TV series but am not a big fan and had only watched episodes periodically babysitting my cousin. I had not read anything about the movie. In fact, I didn't even know they were making a movie. I was invited, last minute, to a private sneak peak. This movie won't even start to play locally here for a couple weeks.
I was shocked at the casting. Was there even an Asian actor hired to play any of the Asian roles here? I don't think so. I've just been been Googling and I am now up to speed with the http://www.racebending.com controversy.
The puzzling thing is Shyamalan calls himself an Asian American. So its pretty obvious what has happened here: self hate. I could understand if, say, some of the roles were replaced with non-Asian actors and the actors were good. I could understand if, say, a box office draw for the younger audience like Robert Pattinson was used. None of that happened. All the Asian roles were replaced by unknown non-Asian actors and they all sucked.
There is only one reason for this I think: self-hate. In every minority group, it happens. You get the occasional poor soul who just hates themselves and their race. Clearly this is Mr. Shyamalan's problem.
The problem with that, is when you hate yourself, it clouds everything. This also explains Mr. Shyamalan failure on all his recent movies. He needs help and I suggest no one in Hollywood hire this man to make a movie again till he gets it. It will save us all from summer movies that are actually so bad it might damage a human brain.
Seriously, as an announcer said during the Japanese round of 16 match: this maybe not the worst movie I've seen but its quite comfortably the 2nd worse movie I've ever seen.
Get help Mr Shyamalan and learn to love yourself and your race!
Cloverfield (2008)
Run faster fat ass, I want to see the end of the movie!
I really enjoyed this movie, though I am glad I waited for it to come out on HD disc before watching it. This movie - will - make you dizzy at times but its a trade off, as the filming style allows you to really get engrossed into this movie. I found myself saying:
"Run faster fat ass, I want to see the end of the movie!"
several times. The first person angle got me so engrossed with this movie that, among other things, I sometimes forgot myself and worried about the "cameraman" surviving so I could see how it ended. I had a three friends over watching the movie with me, and a couple times that I yelled that they actually yelled along with me instead of just laughing.
Other than the filming style, this was a great movie. It was totally engrossing and fast paced. It created a great air of tension but only sparingly used the "jump out and say boo" element that so many other movies abuse and overuse, making it meaningless. Actually, there may have only been one of those in the entire movie! When the movie ended I wanted more, the hallmark of a good movie experience.
I might have to say that the acting was aided by the filming method, not relying on the actors to do much more than look scared and yell many times; but I couldn't actually tell you if they were good actors or not. It doesn't matter. This movie didn't need much acting as the story and direction were the real stars.
Took 2 points off because the camera work made me very dizzy in several scenes and I had to pause it and settle my head. There has to be a way to use this filming technique without making the audience ill.
Hancock (2008)
Story=Simple; Exciting=No; Smith=Still Good;Enternatining=Kind of, yes;
I like to go through a simple checklist of a few simple questions when reviewing movies. The first question being: did it waste my time? For Hancock, the answer is no it did not.
The story of Hancock is very simple overall, though the concept is interesting and there is a small twist which keeps the 2nd half of the movie from dragging and makes the overall movie more interesting. But I must emphasize that the story is extremely simple. The trailer gives it all except for the twist, which I won't post about as that would be a spoiler. Super-powered individual, is a drunk and not very good at it. Along comes PR man who helps him. The twist doesn't make the story any more complicated but it helps fill the hour and a half.
The second question is: did it waste my money? For me, the answer is no. For you, depends...
A lot of you pay an arm and a leg to see a movie. I don't understand why you put up with it, but that's another topic. I do not pay much for movies and I get digital projection, digital knock-your-socks-off surround sound and reserved seating in seats with leg room, ample padding and that recline. In that context this movie did not waste my money.
This movie is entertaining in that sit back, turn your mind off and watch a movie way. It had laughs, limited but nice effects, eye candy and a simple but engaging enough story that I didn't check my watch once. There was no excitement, though, and nothing to set your pulse racing. Some people commented that this movie was lacking a villain. That is a valid point but I am not sure if a villain wouldn't have made it much worse. The charm of this movie was in its well done simplicity and a super bad guy might have tipped it into the bad, run-of-the-mill superhero movie category.
A big part of what makes this movie entertaining is Will Smith. I almost hate to say it, as that guy has grown so arrogant that its a big turn off. However, he does have a way with the comedy and a charm that pulls you into a character. Both of which were key to making this movie entertaining, and he delivered.
The last question is: should you see it?
I would say it depends on if you are in the mood to be lightly entertained and you like Will Smith. If you're looking for a great movie experience, this is not it. If you're looking for a roller coaster ride, this is not it. If you hate Will Smith, you're going to hate this movie. If you've got time/money to kill or going to see this movie drunk or in an altered state, yeah go see it. Otherwise, you will probably enjoy it more at home for the price of a rental or the bandwidth time of your broadband.
10,000 BC (2008)
If anyone reads this, 1080p goodness
OK, so lets say I watched this from a Blu-Ray rental. I had avoided this movie because the reviews were so bad but, lets say, that it came up in my netflix, um, reader and got, er, mailed to me and I didn't realize I had set it to, um, mail.
The bad: this movie has terrible logical holes, the emotional parts were quite flat and didn't evoke much emotion. They story was ripped (no pun intended) from various sources and I don't think I saw one original story element in the whole thing. Overall a terrible movie.
The good: this looked gorgeous on my 60" flat panel monitor and I actually turned off FFDshow post precessing as it was unneeded. 1080p indeed and quite something to watch visually.
The bottom line: The beautiful visuals in 1080p make up for the terrible movie and the "price" I paid to see it was exactly right. A "1" for the awful movie but "5" for visuals and another opportunity to enjoy my home theater setup. 6 out of 10
Wanted (2008)
Do not vote for this movie with your wallet!
As consumers we vote with our wallets, and the tide has been turning against consumers for years now. Have we come to the point that if the premise is great, we don't care about the execution? I just don't understand all these glowing reviews. I am not some high brow movie consumer. I just want to walk out of a movie without feeling like I just wasted my time.
This movie wasted my time. Sure, I do think the concept is a really great one. No question. The whole idea is really great. No surprise as its from a comic. Did I read the comic? Nope, but as an avid collector many years ago, I know that there are some really great ideas in comics. This movie cannot take credit for the concept, people!
What it can take credit for is a total lack of execution. I do not have issue with the first half of the movie. Everything up to the twist climax was standard summer movie fare. Nothing special (besides the great concept) but also nothing terrible (though James McAvoy's acting was borderline terrible). I would probably rate it a 6. After that point, it just fell apart and ruined anything positive this movie had to offer. The story became worse than lame, the characters less than 1 dimensional and the ending was a joke. I wished I had walked out before the last 30-45 minutes.
Basically, it was a big buildup to an interesting climax, then everyone in this movie had no idea where to go with it. Without spoilers, its impossible to go into details. So I will just say the movie went from a 6 to -6 but I can't give it less than a 1. It deserves >1.
I feel bad that we consumers have come to a point where there are enough people ready to settle for half a movie with a great concept taken verbatim from someone else, to give this pile of trash glowing reviews. I guess, in the end, this just proves that we get what we deserve.
The Happening (2008)
Scifi fans beware
I'm a sci-fi fan and its been a drought for us on original science-based fiction. Everything is a remake, based on a book or comic or a sequel. So it was with that objective in mind, I was eager to see the "The Happening". The premise of this movie had the makings of a top notch science-based movie. Leaving the theater, I am left asking what happened? This was not sci-fi, as the trailers lead me to believe, in even the most liberal use of the genre categorization IMO. Sci-fi fans will be much let down and should not see this movie looking for that element to be developed.
So its not sci-fi, it could still be a good movie right? Well unfortunately it is not. The trailers also made this movie look a bit like Signs, which many people hated but I liked. Signs is all I'm going to say about Shyamalan, I'm not going to get into the "high-brow" critiquing of the director or whatever. I never care about any of that, for me a movie is about entertainment and if its worth my time. For many of you, whether a movie is worth your money is probably also significant (since you pay so much for movies). This movie is not worth your time or money. It wasn't even worth the >US$3 I paid to see it in THX, DLP, DTS, reserved seating, etc and it definitely wasn't worth my time.
Movies, for me, are about story and how well that story is told. Effects, actors and the rest are all elements of telling the story and how they do is ultimately how well the story is told. The only time I was actually into this movie was in the beginning. I actually thought this would be a great movie at that point, but after around 10 minutes or so, that was it. It was then an hour and a couple dozen or so minutes of nothing. I wasn't drawn into the story, there was no air of suspense or tension, there was nothing. I know the approximate time marks because I checked my watch a half dozen times during this movie. I was so disengaged that I suggested to my girlfriend we sneak into the theater's bathroom for some actual entertainment, but she declined :(.
I have to compare this movie a bit to Signs, because that was what I went in thinking this movie would be like. So if you find my review totally off, then this is where the disconnect would be, but I don't believe I am anywhere off base here, as my girlfriend (who I saw the movie with) totally agrees with me. While many people didn't like Signs, I found that it created a nice atmosphere of tension with climaxes and plot elements which kept me involved and engaged. That was totally lacking in this movie. It was more like a superficial attempt to do that, using those jump out and say "boo" elements which are so trite and overused, but lacking anything that set the sage to have those "boo" moments mean something.
I felt that Mark Wahlberg and Zooey Deschanel were underwhelming. Knowing Wahlberg's ability I almost can't help but blame other people. However, even with a bad script or poor direction I expected more from Wahlberg. This is one of those bad movies where you expect someone like John Leguizamo to be able to steal the show. Sadly, even he was flat and his character's role was slightly confusing. I wouldn't be surprised if Leguizamo's acting was hampered by his own difficulty with understanding his role in the story.
Instead of a 0, this got a 3 from me because there was some good. The first 10-20 minutes were interesting, there were some really beautiful shots and there was nice use of elemental effects. Nothing worth your time or money though, I wouldn't even recommend this as a rental, it was that bad.
The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian (2008)
Rare time when a sequel is better than the original but beware on violence for kids
Like many other people out there, the Narnia books were my first introduction to the fantasy genre. In 4th grade, my teacher Mrs. Martindale gave me the first couple of books in our class secret santa, and I fell in love with books from there. I was bitterly disappointed by the first movie in this series. Not because it wasn't beautifully shot (it was), not because I didn't like the actors (I kind of did), not because of the effects (which I liked) but because, unlike the book, the movie didn't make me care about the characters, nor really get into the world of Narnia, or the story, at all. The core to a movie is the story and how the story is told IMO. "Wardrobe" failed miserably in telling a great story.
That out of the way, bring on Prince Caspian which I was expecting great things from based on the net vibe. Today I just came home from my 4th viewing. This movie had all the elements that I did like from the first movie, and then it did just a totally wonderful job of pulling me into the story and the characters. Unlike the first movie, I was engaged throughout and rode the ups and downs of the story like a child on a swing: with joy. Instead of "kind of" liking the actors, I loved them this time. I felt they did a great job in their roles and in getting you to understand all the dimensions of their characters. Interesting side note, I felt that Anna Popplewell started to steal the show in the way that Emma Watson started taking the stage in the Potter series. Started, let me emphasize.
I'm not a purist on these literary and comic adaptions. Though I do feel if a director/writer takes radical liberties, it better be good. Having re-read the book a week before the movie was released, I noted that they took some, arguably, radical edits from the book which I found I applauded. It put the story together in a much better way for the shorter time and medium of a movie, as opposed to a book.
Why I took a point off is that some parts of this movie were a bit dark (especially the opening) and I had trouble seeing the action clearly. I've watched it 4 times in 3 different digital projection theaters, and I can almost definitively say that its not the theaters. Also, this movie is a bit grittier and more violent than the first. Whether you like that or not is not the issue (I liked it), but the rating is wrong. Its comedic that sexual situations is a big ratings taboo but violence constantly gets a pass. On my first viewing, my girlfriend and I were accompanied by her 12 year old niece and friend. The violence in (without spoilers) the first combat scene and its ending I felt was too much for their young eyes.
Otherwise, great movie! It is 2 and a half hours which goes by too fast. I definitely recommend seeing this movie!
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008)
Must see for Indy fans, for others it depends on how much movies cost where you are.
Unless you grew up with Indy, I would say this movie is not worth paying $6-10 (plus your gas driving to the theater). Older people who took their kids to see the first couple of Indy movies, you will be disappointed and confused. Kids who saw the Indy movies on DVD or on the movie channels, I think you will feel ripped off. I paid about $3 to see this movie in digital DLP, SDDS, THX, etc. For $3 its worth seeing no matter who you are.
For those who grew up with Indy, this movie is a must see. Not because its a great movie (its not) but because the script was written for Indy fans as they do throwback jokes and dialog throughout the movie, which will make you smile. But I don't need to tell you as you already saw this movie.
For everyone else, this movie is a disappointment. They waited 20 years for this script? I don't think so. More like they just ran out of other ideas and Firewall was so bad that Ford just needed something to get the taste of that one out of his mouth. Don't know the reason, but the script was not it. The story was superficial, doesn't draw you into the movie or develop any caring for the individuals in it. Worse, it didn't even take you on a ride, like some superficial action movies can do. The best way to describe it is that it was more like the story of a bad movie franchise based video game, which puts in all the elements of the movie series just so they have some enticing screenshots to put on the box and they can say "just like the movies".
I gave this a 7 because the terrible story was offset by some really stunning visuals (without spoilers, let me just say waterfalls are pretty) and rather interesting set designs. Also, as I mentioned, they did include a lot of stuff for Indy fans, referencing the other movies and even pulling a surprise from the first one.
Personally, I wish they rethought the entire last 30% of this movie, went back to the drawing board on dialog and story building throughout and didn't make the big climax so out of line with the story, the Indy movies in general and just plain ridiculous.
I think the big problem was Sean Connery's refusal to leave retirement. If he took part in this movie, I'd like to think he would've said: "Hold on, I didn't come out of retirement to do crap."