Search
Search results
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Mile 22 (2018) in Movies
Sep 20, 2018 (Updated Sep 20, 2018)
The Movie Equivelant of a Shrug
I saw Mile 22 last night and when I got in my dad asked me how it was. I replied with a simple shrug and that is honestly the best way to sum up this movie. It's not bad and it's not great. The worst thing about that is that Peter Berg and Mark Wahlberg have worked together 3 times prior to this movie and all 3 times have resulted in fantastic movies, not mediocre ones like this. I was looking forward to this going in knowing that it was Berg and Wahlberg working together again and I have really liked everything else they have made together, (especially Patriot's Day,) but this is unfortunately the worst film that they have made together so far, but it's still not awful.
The best thing about this film is definitely Iko Uwais. Whenever we get to see him doing his thing on screen, it is electrifying. The issue here though is the way that Jacques Jouffret decided to shoot these sequences is choppy and incoherent at times. Why would you cast one of the best fight choreographers in the world in your movie and then every time he get to fight onscreen, you decided to shake the camera about and make 10+ jump-cuts in the space of a few minutes?
Rhonda Rousey is in the movie too and surprisingly I didn't cringe every time she spoke and instead felt that she did a pretty decent job with what she was given. Lauren Cohen was fine too, we all know that she can do a pretty solid American accent at this point because of her work on The Walking Dead. Wahlberg is perfectly serviceable here too, he has been better in other things, but he also been far worse. It is hard to waste an actor like John Malkovich in a film and yet they manage it here, literally any actor could have played his role.
The end is also pretty rubbish. There is a flimsy twist followed by a sequel tease and then the credits abruptly appear. They are clearly aiming for a sequel, but it would have been nice if they could have tied this movie up a bit better first.
Overall, this is an okay action flick with some cool stunts that doesn't live up to what it could have been and ends too abruptly. There are some cool stunts and satisfying kills in the film, but they could have been shot a lot better.
The best thing about this film is definitely Iko Uwais. Whenever we get to see him doing his thing on screen, it is electrifying. The issue here though is the way that Jacques Jouffret decided to shoot these sequences is choppy and incoherent at times. Why would you cast one of the best fight choreographers in the world in your movie and then every time he get to fight onscreen, you decided to shake the camera about and make 10+ jump-cuts in the space of a few minutes?
Rhonda Rousey is in the movie too and surprisingly I didn't cringe every time she spoke and instead felt that she did a pretty decent job with what she was given. Lauren Cohen was fine too, we all know that she can do a pretty solid American accent at this point because of her work on The Walking Dead. Wahlberg is perfectly serviceable here too, he has been better in other things, but he also been far worse. It is hard to waste an actor like John Malkovich in a film and yet they manage it here, literally any actor could have played his role.
The end is also pretty rubbish. There is a flimsy twist followed by a sequel tease and then the credits abruptly appear. They are clearly aiming for a sequel, but it would have been nice if they could have tied this movie up a bit better first.
Overall, this is an okay action flick with some cool stunts that doesn't live up to what it could have been and ends too abruptly. There are some cool stunts and satisfying kills in the film, but they could have been shot a lot better.
Neon's Nerd Nexus (360 KP) rated Jumanji: The Next Level (2019) in Movies
Dec 9, 2019
Half baked
jumanji next level is like an uninteresting game cutscene thats also unskippable its dull, frustrating, overlong and makes you wish you were doing something else. I actualy quite enjoyed the first instalment I it had some genuinely good ideas, great set pieces and some really fun action so i find it sad to say the sequel is not worth your time at all. Starting in the real world here lies its fist problem: not only are all the teens really boring and generic characters they are all also played by people that just cant act which absolutely kills any attachment to the characters and makes them seem more like one dimensional npcs in a cheap videogame. This would all be fine if the film jumped quickly into the game and the action but instead we get stuck with them for so long that i was begining to get restless way before we even begin to enter the jumanji. Once we do enter the game things do pick up but not by much as what we get is essentially a long drawn out re-skin of the first movie stuffed full of repetative humour and references. Its also contains some of the worst shot/lazy action scenes i have seen this year with not only poor cgi that offers no sense of weight but also no sense of thrill or excitement either. Long unnecessary scenes also plague the film too adding nothing to the story or character development and some jokes even go on for way to long even though they muster no laughs at all. Theres definitely some fun in watching the rock, kevin heart, jack black and karen gilinham act like thier in movie real world counterparts as they do a really impressive job of imitating the teen characters better than the teen actors do them selves. Another huge problem comes from each game character having only three lives as this immediately removes all threat/peril from the movie and again kills all tension too. If i had to sum up this sequel i would say its a movie made for people that talk through movies and i garantee if you go and see it at the cinema i bet thats what people will do because it lacks anything to keep even casual movie goers engaged and focused. More like disappointing dlc that you paid for upfront than 'next level' this movie really isnt worth your time. If you own the previous movies id stay home in the warm and watch them instead save yourself an over two hour slog of bad jokes and poor action.
Fred (860 KP) rated Wonder Woman 1984 (2020) in Movies
Dec 27, 2020
Not such a wonder
Contains spoilers, click to show
There are some good scenes in WW84. The beginning scene, followed by the mall scene, both great scenes. The highway scene, the invisible jet scene, very cool. But scenes don't make a movie. Well, they do, but you know what I mean. A few good scenes doesn't make a movie good. The movie is very slow, badly paced & the story, quite frankly, stinks.
Again, Wonder Woman is pitted against a villain that is boring. He is played very well by the Mandolorian, Pedro Pascal. But the character is weak. We also have Kristen Wiig as the Cheetah, I guess. She's just an 80s chick until the very end, when she is turned into a cheetah woman & we're "treated" to a CGI fight, that is so dark & so badly directed, you'll struggle to see anything going on or get a good look at Cheetah, except for the bad make-up job on Wiig's face. Speaking of Wiig, she's okay, but nothing special.
I know I'm in the minority, but I don't find Gal Gadot a very good Wonder Woman. She's pretty, she kicks ass, but her acting is not very good. The character is dull. And I find the way her accent is there one minute & gone the next annoying. I laughed out loud when she tells the guy at the end that she likes his Auschwitz (outfit). She's easily the weakest character in the film. And like the first movie, we're spending most of the time wanting to see Wonder Woman on screen instead of Diana.
Chris Pine is great, as always & the reverse "seeing new things" scenes as he's introduced to the 80s are as great as they were in the first movie when Diana is shown new things.
But the real problem of the film is the story. Wonder Woman saves the day by asking people to give up their wishes. Nice dream, but would never happen. We know the world is full of scumbags that would never give up power, or money or anything for anyone else. WW talks to us, the audience & makes a plea that would flop just as much as this film. Throw in the 2 & a half hour runtime, far too long and I found myself bored for most of it. Not every superhero movie has to be so long. And instead of spending time on character & story development, they wasted it on scenes that did nothing to advance the plot.
Oh, stay tuned for the mid-credit scene. It's okay & worth it.
Again, Wonder Woman is pitted against a villain that is boring. He is played very well by the Mandolorian, Pedro Pascal. But the character is weak. We also have Kristen Wiig as the Cheetah, I guess. She's just an 80s chick until the very end, when she is turned into a cheetah woman & we're "treated" to a CGI fight, that is so dark & so badly directed, you'll struggle to see anything going on or get a good look at Cheetah, except for the bad make-up job on Wiig's face. Speaking of Wiig, she's okay, but nothing special.
I know I'm in the minority, but I don't find Gal Gadot a very good Wonder Woman. She's pretty, she kicks ass, but her acting is not very good. The character is dull. And I find the way her accent is there one minute & gone the next annoying. I laughed out loud when she tells the guy at the end that she likes his Auschwitz (outfit). She's easily the weakest character in the film. And like the first movie, we're spending most of the time wanting to see Wonder Woman on screen instead of Diana.
Chris Pine is great, as always & the reverse "seeing new things" scenes as he's introduced to the 80s are as great as they were in the first movie when Diana is shown new things.
But the real problem of the film is the story. Wonder Woman saves the day by asking people to give up their wishes. Nice dream, but would never happen. We know the world is full of scumbags that would never give up power, or money or anything for anyone else. WW talks to us, the audience & makes a plea that would flop just as much as this film. Throw in the 2 & a half hour runtime, far too long and I found myself bored for most of it. Not every superhero movie has to be so long. And instead of spending time on character & story development, they wasted it on scenes that did nothing to advance the plot.
Oh, stay tuned for the mid-credit scene. It's okay & worth it.
Nick Friesen (96 KP) rated John Wick (2014) in Movies
Jul 13, 2017
Keanu Reeves (4 more)
The established hitman universe
Incredible gunplay
Solid fight choreography
Decipherable cinematography during action
Best Action Movie Post-Matrix
The problem with many modern action movies lies in the bullshit concept known as "shaky-cam." Perhaps well meant at first, in order to make audiences "feel" the impact of punches and gunshots, it is now so overused that you can't even tell what's going on or who is hitting who in many action movies. Enter John Wick: not a single use of "shaky-cam." Not one. All camera shots during action sequences are stable and staged at angles that allow the audience to see exactly what is going on. I used to think Jason Bourne was the best action series post-Matrix, but John Wick and its sequel changed that as fast the titular character can shoot another goon in the head. The fight choreography is sublime, the script is simple but tight, and Keanu Reeves is slicker than ever. John Wick is the best action movie since The Matrix, and it just so happens to star the same bad-ass guy we've been dreaming of being since 1999. Now I have to go review John Wick: Chapter 2!
Awix (3310 KP) rated Star Trek Beyond (2016) in Movies
Feb 25, 2018 (Updated Feb 25, 2018)
'You know what the problem is with this Star Trek movie script for the 50th anniversary Star Trek movie,' said the studio executives to the writers of this film. 'It's just a bit too Star Trek-y. Go away and make the new Star Trek film less like Star Trek.' Well, heaven forbid a Star Trek film should actually be Star Trek-y. One imagines that the studio was pretty happy with the finished product, as it is certainly not very Star Trek-y. It's a bit Star Wars-y and very Guardians of the Galaxy-y, to the point where you wonder why they bothered putting the Star Trek name on this at all.
Well, okay, as a knockabout sci-fi adventure it is not too bad, I suppose, but very undistinguished and really lacking in its own identity. The karaoke performances of some of the cast as the original Star Trek characters are also impressively faithful. But the fact remains that while you're watching it, the only bits which carry any kind of emotional resonance are the ones inherited from previous iterations of the franchise, and you never forget that. An indifferent tribute to the original series; as a celebration of Star Trek as a whole, really poor.
Well, okay, as a knockabout sci-fi adventure it is not too bad, I suppose, but very undistinguished and really lacking in its own identity. The karaoke performances of some of the cast as the original Star Trek characters are also impressively faithful. But the fact remains that while you're watching it, the only bits which carry any kind of emotional resonance are the ones inherited from previous iterations of the franchise, and you never forget that. An indifferent tribute to the original series; as a celebration of Star Trek as a whole, really poor.
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated Child's Play 3 (1991) in Movies
Oct 22, 2019 (Updated Nov 8, 2019)
The third outing for Chucky unfortunately offers nothing new.
It's simply a less fun re tread of the first two.
The setting for Child's Play 3 mainly takes place at a military academy for young people, with typical character cliches thrown in - the nerdy coward type who will clearly redeem himself by the end of the movie, the harsh drill sergeant, the jock type bullies, the badass female, and of course a whole host of people who (for the third time!) don't believe a now teenage Andy Barcley, that there's a killer doll on the loose.
It's all pretty tiresome, and tied together by a poor script.
Chucky himself is the same old, shooting off sweary one liners and being a general prick to everyone he comes across (not necessarily a bad thing).
The finale is pretty lackluster, and not a patch on the seemingly never ending abuse parade against Chucky from Child's Play 2, but it does boast some nice animatronic work and some nasty practical effects.
Child's Play 3 is ultimately a thoroughly underwhelming sequel, sat in a weird purgatory between the more horror themed elements of the first movie, and the schlockier elements of the later films.
It's simply a less fun re tread of the first two.
The setting for Child's Play 3 mainly takes place at a military academy for young people, with typical character cliches thrown in - the nerdy coward type who will clearly redeem himself by the end of the movie, the harsh drill sergeant, the jock type bullies, the badass female, and of course a whole host of people who (for the third time!) don't believe a now teenage Andy Barcley, that there's a killer doll on the loose.
It's all pretty tiresome, and tied together by a poor script.
Chucky himself is the same old, shooting off sweary one liners and being a general prick to everyone he comes across (not necessarily a bad thing).
The finale is pretty lackluster, and not a patch on the seemingly never ending abuse parade against Chucky from Child's Play 2, but it does boast some nice animatronic work and some nasty practical effects.
Child's Play 3 is ultimately a thoroughly underwhelming sequel, sat in a weird purgatory between the more horror themed elements of the first movie, and the schlockier elements of the later films.
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Friday the 13th Part III (1982) in Movies
Mar 13, 2020 (Updated Mar 13, 2020)
Sleepaway Camp 1982: 3D Jason
So this one is my favorite out of all them, its goes 3, 1, 4, 7, than who knows after that. The kills are fantastic, this movie is the first time you see Jason wearing the Hockey Mask. Plus its in 3D, yes thats right, 3D. Plus my second charcter Shelby. Thats right, he's my second favorite charcter, besides Jason. The loveable Shelby, fell so bad for him. Most to all of the deaths realie on the 3D espect, which is cool.
The plot: The third installment in the "Friday the 13th" series picks up on the day after the carnage with homicidal maniac Jason Voorhees (Richard Brooker) stealing some clothes and killing a local store owner. Meanwhile, Chris (Dana Kimmell) and her sometimes boyfriend, Rick (Paul Kratka), are hosting a group of teenage friends at Chris' lake house. Despite a run-in with a local biker gang, they enjoy an amiable weekend together -- that is, until Jason begins knocking off kids and bikers alike.
Part 3- takes place right after part 2, it even begins showing the ending of part II, which again is good. Plus that theme song, for this movie is epic, like a cool disco theme song.
Happy Friday The 13th Everybody.
The plot: The third installment in the "Friday the 13th" series picks up on the day after the carnage with homicidal maniac Jason Voorhees (Richard Brooker) stealing some clothes and killing a local store owner. Meanwhile, Chris (Dana Kimmell) and her sometimes boyfriend, Rick (Paul Kratka), are hosting a group of teenage friends at Chris' lake house. Despite a run-in with a local biker gang, they enjoy an amiable weekend together -- that is, until Jason begins knocking off kids and bikers alike.
Part 3- takes place right after part 2, it even begins showing the ending of part II, which again is good. Plus that theme song, for this movie is epic, like a cool disco theme song.
Happy Friday The 13th Everybody.
Veronica Pena (690 KP) rated Outbreak (1995) in Movies
Apr 5, 2020
This film is really, really good. Incredibly good. Maybe it's the timing of when I'm watching this (in the middle of a pandemic) or maybe it's the story or maybe it's a combination of the two, either way, this film is fantastic. My only complaint is the length. It felt really long and some parts it felt like it was moving very slowly but at the same time, I can't really think of anything that could've been cut down or shaved off - so maybe I'm just weird.
The cast was really there, on par. Anyone who reads my reviews knows that I'm normally in love with a small character - the ones with fewer lines, supporting the story, less important to the main plot, but this film is not one of those. Dustin Hoffman's Col. Sam Daniels was incredible. When he was pleading with the pilots? I was just about crying. I loved Cuba Gooding, Jr. too. I think this is one of his best films. And duh, Morgan Freeman. In what movie is Morgan Freeman a bad actor? If you can find me one, I'll give you $5.
This movie is a great watch. It keeps you on your toes and you're invested in the characters.
P.S. A young Patrick Dempsey? Mama mia.
The cast was really there, on par. Anyone who reads my reviews knows that I'm normally in love with a small character - the ones with fewer lines, supporting the story, less important to the main plot, but this film is not one of those. Dustin Hoffman's Col. Sam Daniels was incredible. When he was pleading with the pilots? I was just about crying. I loved Cuba Gooding, Jr. too. I think this is one of his best films. And duh, Morgan Freeman. In what movie is Morgan Freeman a bad actor? If you can find me one, I'll give you $5.
This movie is a great watch. It keeps you on your toes and you're invested in the characters.
P.S. A young Patrick Dempsey? Mama mia.
Scott Tostik (389 KP) rated Wrong Turn (2021) in Movies
Mar 17, 2021
Not what I expected... But not too bad either
Contains spoilers, click to show
Sitting down to watch the new Wrong Turn flick. About ten minutes in I was curious to know what the inbred mountain man were going to look like.
Little did I know.
The 2021 edition of Wrong Turn doesn't have deformed monstrosities stalking their prey through the woods and hills of the North Carolina. It doesn't have a spider monkey inbred that could climb a tree in ,4 seconds.
What it does have is an entire community of people living in the hills. A community that has their own laws. Their own court. Their own due process. And the results are quite impressive.
Movie begins off innocently enough 6 friends backpacking through the woods and hills of the mountains.
What follows is a messy, twisted romp that reminds me of the short lived tv series called "Outsiders". But with an R rating and some eye gouging and throat slitting and blood spilling...
I'm not gonna say it's a welcome edition to the Wrong Turn franchise... But it's really not a Wrong Turn movie... It should've been called The Foundation... Or even Wrong Turn: The Foundation... Would've made more sense.
Little did I know.
The 2021 edition of Wrong Turn doesn't have deformed monstrosities stalking their prey through the woods and hills of the North Carolina. It doesn't have a spider monkey inbred that could climb a tree in ,4 seconds.
What it does have is an entire community of people living in the hills. A community that has their own laws. Their own court. Their own due process. And the results are quite impressive.
Movie begins off innocently enough 6 friends backpacking through the woods and hills of the mountains.
What follows is a messy, twisted romp that reminds me of the short lived tv series called "Outsiders". But with an R rating and some eye gouging and throat slitting and blood spilling...
I'm not gonna say it's a welcome edition to the Wrong Turn franchise... But it's really not a Wrong Turn movie... It should've been called The Foundation... Or even Wrong Turn: The Foundation... Would've made more sense.
LoganCrews (2861 KP) rated Proof (2005) in Movies
Sep 21, 2020
𝘋𝘶𝘮𝘣 𝘞𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘏𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨, a movie about advanced mathematics that couldn't possibly be more stupid. A quote on the back of the DVD case advertised this sappy drivel as "The kind of movie that's made for Oscar" - and I have to say, I couldn't agree more: in that it's overdramatized into ruin, sickeningly melodramatic to the point of near offense, talks a great deal but says nothing (has lengthy asides about conditioners and pointless math puns to pad out this pathetic non-story), everyone overacts, and it reeks of a pretentious stage production poorly translated to the screen with minimal effort. Overly literary for no reason whatsoever, despite the fact that it's nothing more than unnecessary, surface-level jargon which actively refuses to show even a hint of depth. What I'm sure would be at least *ever so slightly* more compelling on the stage absolutely falls apart on screen with no sense of what this should have kept/added/omitted/etc. to make it work. The only proof to come out of this is that John Madden remains one of the reigning kings of bad, intolerable Oscar bait. Glad he gave up this shit for worlds better stuff like 𝘔𝘪𝘴𝘴 𝘚𝘭𝘰𝘢𝘯𝘦. Lowpoint cringe cinema.