Search
Search results
David McK (3663 KP) rated Conan the Barbarian in Books
Jan 30, 2019
A collection of classic Conan tales, repackaged with a new jacket to tie-in to the new movie coming out. This edition includes:
The Tower of the Elephant (pg 1)
Rogues in the House (pg 27)
The Frost-Giant's Daughter (pg 54)
Queen of the Black Coast (pg 63)
A Witch Shall Be Born (pg 95)
The People of the Black Circle (pg 141)
Red Nails (pg 226)
Beyond the Black River (pg 212)
The Hyborian Age (pg 372)
Cimmeria (verse) (pg 397)
and, to be honest, I'd be more inclined to give the book 1.5 stars (except GR doesn't do 1/2 stars) than 2: I preferred some of my other 2-star rated books, but this wasn't as bad as some of my 1-star rated books either.
The Tower of the Elephant (pg 1)
Rogues in the House (pg 27)
The Frost-Giant's Daughter (pg 54)
Queen of the Black Coast (pg 63)
A Witch Shall Be Born (pg 95)
The People of the Black Circle (pg 141)
Red Nails (pg 226)
Beyond the Black River (pg 212)
The Hyborian Age (pg 372)
Cimmeria (verse) (pg 397)
and, to be honest, I'd be more inclined to give the book 1.5 stars (except GR doesn't do 1/2 stars) than 2: I preferred some of my other 2-star rated books, but this wasn't as bad as some of my 1-star rated books either.
Dork_knight74 (881 KP) rated Ma (2019) in Movies
Aug 17, 2019
Not bad
This movie had some good acting(and some mediocre) but the cinematography was good and the story, overall, hit the mark for creepy. This lady played the part of humiliated high schooler turned psycho pretty well. The story unfolded well. A little slow at first but rolled along at a good pace pretty quickly and smoothly. These kids, however, missed so many red flags with this woman. Naivety at it's finest. The ending was a little weak but at least they didn't go the typical "leave it open for a sequel" way Hollywood seems to love doing so much. Some partial nudity but otherwise nothing to graphic for younger viewers, though probably not for too young of viewers. Anyway, for you adults this one is worth a watch.
Caitlyn Ould (6 KP) rated Love, Simon (2018) in Movies
Jan 21, 2019
Love in a good form
I loved the book that this movie is based on so, so much. It was one of the best books that I read in 2018 along with it's sequel Leah on the Offbeat. And this was one of the best movies that I saw in 2018. The acting is superb and it's so relevant to today's society and culture with the pop culture references of Harry Potter, Brendon Urie, and even a Hamilton Easter Egg which I enjoyed. It also touches your heart and has a lot of themes to do with family at the very core and learning to let people see you for who you really are
Lee KM Pallatina (951 KP) rated the Xbox 360 version of TMNT: Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles in Video Games
Nov 6, 2019
Turtles in a half attempt at a decent game
So after finally getting to finish this somewhat attempt at a ninja turtles game, I quickly became disappointed at its alternate adaptation on a brilliant cgi movie.
Most of the gameplay is in black and white causing the game-view to become almost unwatchable, with bad camera view & no camera controls making this game feel broken.
A lot of the gameplay was difficult due to not being able to see lower platforms.
On the plus side you are able to switch between playing as each turtle who each have their own special move, unfortunately only the character your playing as appears on the screen at a time. That Sucks!
Most of the gameplay is in black and white causing the game-view to become almost unwatchable, with bad camera view & no camera controls making this game feel broken.
A lot of the gameplay was difficult due to not being able to see lower platforms.
On the plus side you are able to switch between playing as each turtle who each have their own special move, unfortunately only the character your playing as appears on the screen at a time. That Sucks!
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated Drive Angry (2011) in Movies
Mar 22, 2021
I'm pretty sure the thought process for Drive Angry was along the lines of "let's make a film where Nicolas Cage has a gunfight whilst fucking someone, and he's also smoking a cigar, and swigging on a bottle of Jack Daniels" and then they just wrote the rest of the screenplay around that.
It's always entertaining to watch Cage do his thing, and Drive Angry has a handful of fun moments and some half decent ideas, but dammit, it's too try hard in its attempts at bad-assery, the CGI is an eyesore, and this is the second film I've seen where writer Todd Farmer literally wrote himself into a gratuitous sex scene. It was weird the first time, second time its just plain creepy.
Drive Angry is the movie equivalent of an STI.
It's always entertaining to watch Cage do his thing, and Drive Angry has a handful of fun moments and some half decent ideas, but dammit, it's too try hard in its attempts at bad-assery, the CGI is an eyesore, and this is the second film I've seen where writer Todd Farmer literally wrote himself into a gratuitous sex scene. It was weird the first time, second time its just plain creepy.
Drive Angry is the movie equivalent of an STI.
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated Little Evil (2017) in Movies
Sep 18, 2020
Little Evil is essentially a comedy version of The Omen, an ok idea on paper, and an ok idea in its execution. Everything about is just ok. It's an easy to watch piece of fluff.
I like Evangeline Lilly, I can tolerate Adam Scott, and Owen Atlas is a decent enough evil little shit. Clancy Brown appears as the primary antagonist but his talent is unfortunately wasted here. I ALWAYS enjoy Donal Faison, but he's not given much to do which is a shame.
The scares are non existent, but the comedy is occasionally funny, and just about carries the movie to an entertaining enough level
There's nothing inherently bad about Little Evil, it's just a bit forgettable. Probably worth a one off viewing if you're subscribed to Netflix.
I like Evangeline Lilly, I can tolerate Adam Scott, and Owen Atlas is a decent enough evil little shit. Clancy Brown appears as the primary antagonist but his talent is unfortunately wasted here. I ALWAYS enjoy Donal Faison, but he's not given much to do which is a shame.
The scares are non existent, but the comedy is occasionally funny, and just about carries the movie to an entertaining enough level
There's nothing inherently bad about Little Evil, it's just a bit forgettable. Probably worth a one off viewing if you're subscribed to Netflix.
Erika (17789 KP) rated The New Mutants (2020) in Movies
Aug 28, 2020 (Updated Aug 28, 2020)
This movie should have never been released, and it's the first film in a LONG time I've considered walking out of. It was so lame, and BORING. It was eye roll inducing the majority of the time. Lame lezzy love story and annoying teenage angst.
I've honestly only seen one thing Maisie Williams has been in, and that's Early Man. If she's actually that bad of an actress, she should definitely just stick to voice acting.
Anya Taylor-Joy was basically the one reason I saw this film, since she was Magick. At least her back story was a little more interesting to most.
The BEST part of the film was eye candy in the form of the hottie whose name is apparently Henry Zaga? Thanks for being nice to look at.
I've honestly only seen one thing Maisie Williams has been in, and that's Early Man. If she's actually that bad of an actress, she should definitely just stick to voice acting.
Anya Taylor-Joy was basically the one reason I saw this film, since she was Magick. At least her back story was a little more interesting to most.
The BEST part of the film was eye candy in the form of the hottie whose name is apparently Henry Zaga? Thanks for being nice to look at.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (2016) in Movies
Jul 19, 2017
Some of the lighting is well implemented (1 more)
Colin Farrell
Bad CGI (2 more)
The movies 3 leads are extremely annoying
Johnny 'oooh' Depp
Fantastic Beasts and Where To Find Them - Or JK Rowling and the Never Ending Quest for More Money
Contains spoilers, click to show
First off, full disclosure, I have never been a fan of the Harry Potter franchise. I’ve read a few of the books and seen a few of the movies and it just isn’t my thing. Honestly, I’m not even a fan of fantasy in general, I think Lord Of The Rings is nonsense and Game Of Thrones is vastly overrated and the last Harry Potter movie I saw was the fourth one. However, I was willing to go into this movie with a clean slate and hopefully have it win me over and unfortunately it didn’t. Also this review will contain spoilers if you care about that sort of thing.
This film is a prequel to the other Harry Potter movies, this time set in America rather than Britain and telling the story of the events that led to the great wizarding war between Dumbledore and Grindlewald. The film did have potential, to see what would have essentially been WWII fought with magic could be really cool but unfortunately all we get here is setup and that actual event we want to see will probably take place 4 or 5 movies down the line. The film opens with Eddie Redmayne’s character, Newt Scamander going to New York from London to set free one of the beasts that he keeps inside his Tardis-like brief case. Then he ends up in a bank and meets a ‘Nomaj,’ which is this film’s lazy version of a ‘muggle,’ who we learn is a simple lonely guy that just wants to open his own bakery and that’s another character cliché ticked off the list. We now have the double act of the nerdy, sniveling protagonist and the overweight sympathetic sidekick. Also, for the rest of this review I will be referring to the baker character as fat bloke and this isn’t to be derogatory, but is purely because the script relies on the, ‘fat, jolly, sympathetic, pathetic loner’ stereotype and passes it off as a character arc. If the script isn’t treating the character with any respect, then why should I? So fat bloke it is then.
So the two of them of course have the exact same briefcase and after some cartoony looking CGI animals escape from Redmayne’s case in the bank the suitcases predictably get mixed up and then the fat bloke gets his bakery loan declined and returns home with Redmayne’s suitcase, then more bad CGI animals open the case and attack the fat bloke. Redmayne’s character then gets arrested by some wizarding inspector for letting the, ‘Nomaj,’ (urgh) get away after seeing the animals in the case and is taken to the New York Wizards base, I guess? Then it’s revealed that the wizarding inspector that arrested Redmayne is a bit of a shit inspector and she is trying to redeem herself in the eyes of her superiors, so in front of this high wizard council, she confiscates the case from Redmayne and opens it only to reveal a bunch of cakes inside. Yes, really… Who writes this shit? Rowling is doing to Harry Potter what Lucas did to Star Wars during the prequels at this point.
So Redmayne gets set free and he goes to fat bloke’s house to find him lying on the floor, then some more bad CGI later the inspector turns up and they take him back to her house to meet her sister? Friend? Does it matter? She ends up becoming the love interest for fat bloke. Then for no apparent reason Redmayne and fat bloke enter the case and he shows fat bloke all this crazy shit that apparently humans aren’t supposed to see and then Redmayne does some more sniveling and decides they have to sneak out of the girls’ apartment and recapture the animals that escaped in the bank and from fat bloke’s apartment. They get a couple of the beasts back then they go to central park to find Redmayne’s horny rhino and they dress fat bloke up in a leather rhino costume and use him as rape bait then they ice skate for a bit and capture the rhino. Again, really… I am not making this shit up for satirical reasons.
Then we see a real life prick Ezra Miller playing some sort of weird emo child who is beat by his mother and we see he is working with Colin Farrell to find a big bad dark spirit that is killing people around New York. Colin Farrell is definitely the best thing about the film at this point. After this a bunch of other stupid shit happens, like Ron Perlman and John Voight coming into the movie, showing a ray of potential then being totally wasted. The movie drags in the middle, but eventually after some more fat jokes, bad CGI and sniveling, all of the creatures are captured and Ezra Miller turns into a black death cloud or some such nonsense. Then he is boosting around New York, fucking up shit as he goes and so Redmayne and Farrell follow him down to the subway to stop him. Redmayne seems to be talking him down and then Farrell shows up and essentially tells him to join the dark side. Then there is a CGI wand battle and the council from earlier show up out of nowhere and kill the black cloud of death. Then Colin Farrell gets pissed off and in the best scene in the movie murders half of the council members before he gets arrested by Eddie Redmayne with some magic handcuffs.
Then the worst part in the movie takes place. It is revealed that Colin Farrell is actually Johnny Depp in disguise. I mean he is Grindlewald in disguise but the important part for me is the replacement of Colin Farrell with Johnny Depp. Now I’m not the world’s biggest Colin Farrell fan, he is great in, ‘In Bruges,’ but other than that he is pretty meh, but he was definitely the best thing that this movie had going for it and they fucking swapped him out! With fucking Johnny-‘ooh’-Depp. As if this movie wasn’t shit enough they swapped out the best thing about it for Johnny Depp, the biggest joke in Hollywood. I’m done, fuck this movie, fuck Johnny Depp, fuck JK Rowling, fuck Harry Potter, I’m out.
Okay, let’s briefly talk about the technical side of the film before I score this thing. The whole cast of this movie is phoning it in, so the acting is fine but nothing to write home about, Farrell is the best thing in this movie, but I feel that in the sequels it will just be an ‘ooh,’ off between Depp and Redmayne. The direction is okay as the movie plods along sufficiently, but the writing is wildly inconsistent and the plot as stated above is all over the place. The lighting and cinematography in one scene are fantastic, when Farrell and Miller are conversing in a dark alleyway but other than that they are pretty mundane too. The score is suitably Harry Potter like and the CGI is also to a similar standard of the Harry Potter films. The problem with that is that the CGI was ropey and of a fairly poor standard in the Harry Potter movies 10 years ago and it doesn’t seem like it has improved much since then. This movie isn’t for me, but even from an objective standpoint, based solely from a moviemaking perspective this movie is poor.
This film is a prequel to the other Harry Potter movies, this time set in America rather than Britain and telling the story of the events that led to the great wizarding war between Dumbledore and Grindlewald. The film did have potential, to see what would have essentially been WWII fought with magic could be really cool but unfortunately all we get here is setup and that actual event we want to see will probably take place 4 or 5 movies down the line. The film opens with Eddie Redmayne’s character, Newt Scamander going to New York from London to set free one of the beasts that he keeps inside his Tardis-like brief case. Then he ends up in a bank and meets a ‘Nomaj,’ which is this film’s lazy version of a ‘muggle,’ who we learn is a simple lonely guy that just wants to open his own bakery and that’s another character cliché ticked off the list. We now have the double act of the nerdy, sniveling protagonist and the overweight sympathetic sidekick. Also, for the rest of this review I will be referring to the baker character as fat bloke and this isn’t to be derogatory, but is purely because the script relies on the, ‘fat, jolly, sympathetic, pathetic loner’ stereotype and passes it off as a character arc. If the script isn’t treating the character with any respect, then why should I? So fat bloke it is then.
So the two of them of course have the exact same briefcase and after some cartoony looking CGI animals escape from Redmayne’s case in the bank the suitcases predictably get mixed up and then the fat bloke gets his bakery loan declined and returns home with Redmayne’s suitcase, then more bad CGI animals open the case and attack the fat bloke. Redmayne’s character then gets arrested by some wizarding inspector for letting the, ‘Nomaj,’ (urgh) get away after seeing the animals in the case and is taken to the New York Wizards base, I guess? Then it’s revealed that the wizarding inspector that arrested Redmayne is a bit of a shit inspector and she is trying to redeem herself in the eyes of her superiors, so in front of this high wizard council, she confiscates the case from Redmayne and opens it only to reveal a bunch of cakes inside. Yes, really… Who writes this shit? Rowling is doing to Harry Potter what Lucas did to Star Wars during the prequels at this point.
So Redmayne gets set free and he goes to fat bloke’s house to find him lying on the floor, then some more bad CGI later the inspector turns up and they take him back to her house to meet her sister? Friend? Does it matter? She ends up becoming the love interest for fat bloke. Then for no apparent reason Redmayne and fat bloke enter the case and he shows fat bloke all this crazy shit that apparently humans aren’t supposed to see and then Redmayne does some more sniveling and decides they have to sneak out of the girls’ apartment and recapture the animals that escaped in the bank and from fat bloke’s apartment. They get a couple of the beasts back then they go to central park to find Redmayne’s horny rhino and they dress fat bloke up in a leather rhino costume and use him as rape bait then they ice skate for a bit and capture the rhino. Again, really… I am not making this shit up for satirical reasons.
Then we see a real life prick Ezra Miller playing some sort of weird emo child who is beat by his mother and we see he is working with Colin Farrell to find a big bad dark spirit that is killing people around New York. Colin Farrell is definitely the best thing about the film at this point. After this a bunch of other stupid shit happens, like Ron Perlman and John Voight coming into the movie, showing a ray of potential then being totally wasted. The movie drags in the middle, but eventually after some more fat jokes, bad CGI and sniveling, all of the creatures are captured and Ezra Miller turns into a black death cloud or some such nonsense. Then he is boosting around New York, fucking up shit as he goes and so Redmayne and Farrell follow him down to the subway to stop him. Redmayne seems to be talking him down and then Farrell shows up and essentially tells him to join the dark side. Then there is a CGI wand battle and the council from earlier show up out of nowhere and kill the black cloud of death. Then Colin Farrell gets pissed off and in the best scene in the movie murders half of the council members before he gets arrested by Eddie Redmayne with some magic handcuffs.
Then the worst part in the movie takes place. It is revealed that Colin Farrell is actually Johnny Depp in disguise. I mean he is Grindlewald in disguise but the important part for me is the replacement of Colin Farrell with Johnny Depp. Now I’m not the world’s biggest Colin Farrell fan, he is great in, ‘In Bruges,’ but other than that he is pretty meh, but he was definitely the best thing that this movie had going for it and they fucking swapped him out! With fucking Johnny-‘ooh’-Depp. As if this movie wasn’t shit enough they swapped out the best thing about it for Johnny Depp, the biggest joke in Hollywood. I’m done, fuck this movie, fuck Johnny Depp, fuck JK Rowling, fuck Harry Potter, I’m out.
Okay, let’s briefly talk about the technical side of the film before I score this thing. The whole cast of this movie is phoning it in, so the acting is fine but nothing to write home about, Farrell is the best thing in this movie, but I feel that in the sequels it will just be an ‘ooh,’ off between Depp and Redmayne. The direction is okay as the movie plods along sufficiently, but the writing is wildly inconsistent and the plot as stated above is all over the place. The lighting and cinematography in one scene are fantastic, when Farrell and Miller are conversing in a dark alleyway but other than that they are pretty mundane too. The score is suitably Harry Potter like and the CGI is also to a similar standard of the Harry Potter films. The problem with that is that the CGI was ropey and of a fairly poor standard in the Harry Potter movies 10 years ago and it doesn’t seem like it has improved much since then. This movie isn’t for me, but even from an objective standpoint, based solely from a moviemaking perspective this movie is poor.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Bad Moms (2016) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019 (Updated Aug 6, 2019)
When moms get tired of being perfect, not being appreciated and decide to give their spoiled children a lesson and just enjoy every minute of their day instead – that’s when the movie Bad Moms happens.
Amy Mitchell (Mila Kunis) is a 32-year-old modern mom, who has a seemingly perfect life: a great marriage, over-achieving kids, a beautiful home and a career. However, she is over-worked and so exhausted that she’s reached the point where she is about to snap. Her life has been reduced to spending a lot of time driving her kids to their extracurricular activities and trying to be just in time for everything. Her perfect life is just a smoke screen, her husband Mike (David Walton) has been unemployed for a while, doesn’t care about helping with anything house- or kids-related, and enjoys a little bit too much online entertainment. In addition to being spoiled, her daughter Jane (Oona Laurence) has some anxiety issues and her son Dylan (Emjay Anthony) has never done his own homework. To make it even more interesting, Amy has to deal with the judgement of PTA Queen, Bee Gwendolyn, (Christina Applegate) and her minions Stacy (Jada Pinkett Smith) and Vicky (Annie Mumolo).
After one hectic day, all Amy can do is stop at a bar and grab a glass of whiskey. There she meets two other underappreciated moms, Kiki (Kristen Bell) and Carla (Kathryn Hahn). Over drinks they vent and declare that they’re tired of living up to expectations and not being appreciated for all their hard work. So they decide to be bad moms.
I love seeing Christina Applegate as the villain; she is smart, evil and pulls all the strings, driving everyone to the edge but nobody can say anything because they’re terrified of her. But the one that dominates the comedy is Kathryn Hann. You would think you might be tired of seeing her in just about every movie released in the last 10 years, but oh boy is this woman hilarious! She plays the divorced working mother whose every line, good or bad, makes the audience ask again and again “Did she just say that?”
I really enjoyed this movie. It is the perfect summer comedy that all audiences can enjoy, especially moms who can really relate. This is The Hangover for moms. I assure you will laugh nonstop because it has a wild drunk trip to the grocery store, a memorable show-and-tell demonstration and a really funny lecture about unflattering bras. I promise you will leave the theater with a smile.
Amy Mitchell (Mila Kunis) is a 32-year-old modern mom, who has a seemingly perfect life: a great marriage, over-achieving kids, a beautiful home and a career. However, she is over-worked and so exhausted that she’s reached the point where she is about to snap. Her life has been reduced to spending a lot of time driving her kids to their extracurricular activities and trying to be just in time for everything. Her perfect life is just a smoke screen, her husband Mike (David Walton) has been unemployed for a while, doesn’t care about helping with anything house- or kids-related, and enjoys a little bit too much online entertainment. In addition to being spoiled, her daughter Jane (Oona Laurence) has some anxiety issues and her son Dylan (Emjay Anthony) has never done his own homework. To make it even more interesting, Amy has to deal with the judgement of PTA Queen, Bee Gwendolyn, (Christina Applegate) and her minions Stacy (Jada Pinkett Smith) and Vicky (Annie Mumolo).
After one hectic day, all Amy can do is stop at a bar and grab a glass of whiskey. There she meets two other underappreciated moms, Kiki (Kristen Bell) and Carla (Kathryn Hahn). Over drinks they vent and declare that they’re tired of living up to expectations and not being appreciated for all their hard work. So they decide to be bad moms.
I love seeing Christina Applegate as the villain; she is smart, evil and pulls all the strings, driving everyone to the edge but nobody can say anything because they’re terrified of her. But the one that dominates the comedy is Kathryn Hann. You would think you might be tired of seeing her in just about every movie released in the last 10 years, but oh boy is this woman hilarious! She plays the divorced working mother whose every line, good or bad, makes the audience ask again and again “Did she just say that?”
I really enjoyed this movie. It is the perfect summer comedy that all audiences can enjoy, especially moms who can really relate. This is The Hangover for moms. I assure you will laugh nonstop because it has a wild drunk trip to the grocery store, a memorable show-and-tell demonstration and a really funny lecture about unflattering bras. I promise you will leave the theater with a smile.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated The Year of Living Dangerously (1983) in Movies
Mar 9, 2020
A Story That Falls Short
The Year of Living Dangerously follows the story of reporter Guy Hamilton (Mel Gibson) during a tumultuous time of civil unrest in Indonesia.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 1
I won’t lie, I restarted this movie probably three times before I finally committed. It’s hard for a movie to bounce back for me when it gets off to such a sluggish start. The setup borders on painful in spots and it sets the tone for what is to come.
Characters: 6
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
One of the shining moments of the movie as it captures 60’s Indonesia beautifully. I was easily transported into the time period and the culture feeling right at home. I also appreciate how the romance between Hamilton and Jill Bryant (Sigourney Weaver) was captured by director Peter Weir. It felt both endearing and sincere.
Conflict: 6
Entertainment Value: 4
The movie was painfully dry. Outside of the romance, it was hard for anything else to really capture my attention. There were times where I thought things would pick up only to be let down again. Unfortunate as I was hoping for more.
Memorability: 4
It’s a struggle trying to remember anything that stood out in the film. While there were one or two things that got my attention, things were pretty drab for the most part. Sitting through this again would almost be like a brand new boring experience.
Pace: 3
Slower than a turtle, there were times where I begged for this movie to end. I kept holding out hope that things would take a turn. Alas…You can’t take too long to get to the point and be disinteresting. That’s a recipe for disaster.
Plot: 7
The story itself wasn’t bad at all, I just wish they could have found a way to make things more interesting. The lack of layers really made things fall short for me. A lot of unrealized potential here just left on the table.
Resolution: 10
Overall: 61
For more reasons than one, I just couldn’t get into The Year of Living Dangerously. “Hate” would be a strong word as there were glimpses of a solid movie…but I can’t say I liked it. Nor can I recommend it. There are a number of better 80’s classics out there.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 1
I won’t lie, I restarted this movie probably three times before I finally committed. It’s hard for a movie to bounce back for me when it gets off to such a sluggish start. The setup borders on painful in spots and it sets the tone for what is to come.
Characters: 6
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
One of the shining moments of the movie as it captures 60’s Indonesia beautifully. I was easily transported into the time period and the culture feeling right at home. I also appreciate how the romance between Hamilton and Jill Bryant (Sigourney Weaver) was captured by director Peter Weir. It felt both endearing and sincere.
Conflict: 6
Entertainment Value: 4
The movie was painfully dry. Outside of the romance, it was hard for anything else to really capture my attention. There were times where I thought things would pick up only to be let down again. Unfortunate as I was hoping for more.
Memorability: 4
It’s a struggle trying to remember anything that stood out in the film. While there were one or two things that got my attention, things were pretty drab for the most part. Sitting through this again would almost be like a brand new boring experience.
Pace: 3
Slower than a turtle, there were times where I begged for this movie to end. I kept holding out hope that things would take a turn. Alas…You can’t take too long to get to the point and be disinteresting. That’s a recipe for disaster.
Plot: 7
The story itself wasn’t bad at all, I just wish they could have found a way to make things more interesting. The lack of layers really made things fall short for me. A lot of unrealized potential here just left on the table.
Resolution: 10
Overall: 61
For more reasons than one, I just couldn’t get into The Year of Living Dangerously. “Hate” would be a strong word as there were glimpses of a solid movie…but I can’t say I liked it. Nor can I recommend it. There are a number of better 80’s classics out there.