Search
Search results
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated American Assassin (2017) in Movies
Jun 26, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
Mitch and his girlfriend are on a love filled holiday in Spain. He's just proposed, she's just said yes, and now they're going to celebrate. But the happy event is cut short when a radical Islamist jihadist cell appears at the resort and attacks. Wounded, and filled with rage at being unable to prevent her death, Mitch finds his new purpose in life.
Eighteen months pass and he has managed to gain an audience with the terrorist responsible for the death of his girlfriend. Vengeance has consumed him, but US Special Forces swoop in and kill everyone denying him the chance to settle the score.
He is debriefed and recruited into a black ops team, Orion, by the CIA's Deputy Director. Here the recruits will be trained by ex-Navy Seal and Cold War veteran Stan Hurley in asymmetrical warefare.
Weapons grade nuclear material has gone missing. Their mission is simple, but who is the operative who seems to know their every move?
Seemingly the critics panned this one. Would I ever need to see it again? No. Was it bad? No. It was a perfectly entertaining action movie... buuuuuut... there's not really much else to say about it. The best bit about this film for me was Michael Keaton. Definitely stream it, if it's under a fiver and you like this sort of film then it's worth buying.
Eighteen months pass and he has managed to gain an audience with the terrorist responsible for the death of his girlfriend. Vengeance has consumed him, but US Special Forces swoop in and kill everyone denying him the chance to settle the score.
He is debriefed and recruited into a black ops team, Orion, by the CIA's Deputy Director. Here the recruits will be trained by ex-Navy Seal and Cold War veteran Stan Hurley in asymmetrical warefare.
Weapons grade nuclear material has gone missing. Their mission is simple, but who is the operative who seems to know their every move?
Seemingly the critics panned this one. Would I ever need to see it again? No. Was it bad? No. It was a perfectly entertaining action movie... buuuuuut... there's not really much else to say about it. The best bit about this film for me was Michael Keaton. Definitely stream it, if it's under a fiver and you like this sort of film then it's worth buying.
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated Piranha 3D (2010) in Movies
Oct 2, 2019
Kind of great, definitely awful
Looking for a silly, average, stupidly gory horror film? You could do a lot worse than Piranha 3D.
This movie is never going to be considered a horror great, not even close. It's cheesy, it's brimming with awful acting (except Elisabeth Shue, we love Elisabeth Shue), and it's completely brain dead, and in spite of all of this, Piranha 3D knows exactly what it is, and just waves it in our stupid entertained faces - it's a lot of fun.
The build up to the ridiculous finale is filled with a lot of one dimensional characters that are hard to care about, but has enough sudden gore (with some pretty nice practical effects for the record) to keep you interested.
They even throw in Christopher Lloyd just being a perfect bat-shit crazy version of himself, because why the hell not.
For the most part, it's all very standard and pretty average. But that aforementioned finale....Christ.
The final 20 minutes is gratuitous and then some.
The audience is just assaulted by outrageous violence, enough to keep you firmly grasping just how silly this film is...it's kind of glorious, and the whole thing deserves it's place in the infamous so-bad-its-great hall of horror fame.
It's dumb, but it's entertaining. A must for anyone who fancies a braindead popcorn horror now and again.
This movie is never going to be considered a horror great, not even close. It's cheesy, it's brimming with awful acting (except Elisabeth Shue, we love Elisabeth Shue), and it's completely brain dead, and in spite of all of this, Piranha 3D knows exactly what it is, and just waves it in our stupid entertained faces - it's a lot of fun.
The build up to the ridiculous finale is filled with a lot of one dimensional characters that are hard to care about, but has enough sudden gore (with some pretty nice practical effects for the record) to keep you interested.
They even throw in Christopher Lloyd just being a perfect bat-shit crazy version of himself, because why the hell not.
For the most part, it's all very standard and pretty average. But that aforementioned finale....Christ.
The final 20 minutes is gratuitous and then some.
The audience is just assaulted by outrageous violence, enough to keep you firmly grasping just how silly this film is...it's kind of glorious, and the whole thing deserves it's place in the infamous so-bad-its-great hall of horror fame.
It's dumb, but it's entertaining. A must for anyone who fancies a braindead popcorn horror now and again.
A Week in Winter
8.0
Rate It
Book
Stoneybridge is a small town on the west coast of Ireland where all the families know one another....
Fiction Ireland Contemporary Life lessons
David McK (3880 KP) rated Jurassic World: Dominion (2022) in Movies
Aug 14, 2022 (Updated Dec 20, 2025)
Insect park?
Jurassic Park (the original) is a masterpiece of cinema.
Jurassic Park 2: The Lost World has it's moments (the raptors in the long grass), but also has the annoying-kid-doing-gymnastics-while-a-Raptor-watches.
Jurassic Park 3 takes some scenes from the original novel (most noticeably the aviary) that were left out of the previous films, but also has the stupid ringing phone that a dinosaur has swallowed that remind the viewer too much (and not in a good way) of Peter Pan and Captain Hook crocodile.
Jurassic World follows the same format as Jurassic Park, except goes larger. It's not a bad movie.
Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom goes in a completely different direction, going the haunted house route in the second half, and ends with the dinosaurs released on the mainland.
Which is where Jurassic World: Dominion picks up, roughly four years on from the ending of Fallen Kingdom. Lots have been made of the fact that this also reunites the original cast - Sam Neill, Laura Dern and Jeff Goldblum - alongside the newer duo of Chris Pratt and Bryce Dallas Howard.
The problem, however, is that more is quite often less, which I found to be the case here - plenty of action (and dinosaurs), yes, but also, well, just missing something :(
Jurassic Park 2: The Lost World has it's moments (the raptors in the long grass), but also has the annoying-kid-doing-gymnastics-while-a-Raptor-watches.
Jurassic Park 3 takes some scenes from the original novel (most noticeably the aviary) that were left out of the previous films, but also has the stupid ringing phone that a dinosaur has swallowed that remind the viewer too much (and not in a good way) of Peter Pan and Captain Hook crocodile.
Jurassic World follows the same format as Jurassic Park, except goes larger. It's not a bad movie.
Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom goes in a completely different direction, going the haunted house route in the second half, and ends with the dinosaurs released on the mainland.
Which is where Jurassic World: Dominion picks up, roughly four years on from the ending of Fallen Kingdom. Lots have been made of the fact that this also reunites the original cast - Sam Neill, Laura Dern and Jeff Goldblum - alongside the newer duo of Chris Pratt and Bryce Dallas Howard.
The problem, however, is that more is quite often less, which I found to be the case here - plenty of action (and dinosaurs), yes, but also, well, just missing something :(
Clausing a Scene (Christmas Falls #6)
8.0
Rate It
Book
I'm definitely on Santa's naughty list this year… My agent calls me a PR nightmare, but I'm...
Contemporary MM Seasonal Romance
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated The Happening (2008) in Movies
Mar 7, 2019
Back in 2009, when I first saw this, I wrote a review on Flixter which read "Simple question: What the hell was Happening???? More to the pointÂ… What was the point???? This movie was so diabolically pointless, self-serving and self-indulgent that words could never do it justice. Such a fall from grace from the man who brought us The Sixth Sense and UnbreakableÂ…"
In many ways, that sums this film up perfectly. On a second viewing, an almost three years later, I feel that I have just a little more to say, but none of which is particularly good, except for the fact that I have increased my original one star/candle review to three out the maximum of ten! Shyamalan was a rising talent and now he has fallen far from grace, especially after the flop that was The Last Airbender. In this film he managed, whether by some misguided design or just by poor direction, to get some of the most amateurish performances out his cast imaginable.
I mean, I know that I'm hardly Mark Wahlberg's greatest advocate but he's still miles better than this, as is his counterpart, Zooey Deschanel, who both put in embarrassingly poor performances, but not just bad, but something that I would expect to see in a church hall! This was amateur all the way, with the only saving grace being the otherwise precise Shyamalan direction. But that's not to say that it wasn't boring or that he was directing a pointless narrative. The concept was slightly interesting but handled in such a ridiculously cack-handed and misjudged manner that I doubt anyone would dare suggest this idea again, let alone finance of film it.
I won't give away the "Twist", if you would call it that, but it is original, I grant you that, but interesting enough to support a movie? No way. Nor was anything else about this film.
In many ways, that sums this film up perfectly. On a second viewing, an almost three years later, I feel that I have just a little more to say, but none of which is particularly good, except for the fact that I have increased my original one star/candle review to three out the maximum of ten! Shyamalan was a rising talent and now he has fallen far from grace, especially after the flop that was The Last Airbender. In this film he managed, whether by some misguided design or just by poor direction, to get some of the most amateurish performances out his cast imaginable.
I mean, I know that I'm hardly Mark Wahlberg's greatest advocate but he's still miles better than this, as is his counterpart, Zooey Deschanel, who both put in embarrassingly poor performances, but not just bad, but something that I would expect to see in a church hall! This was amateur all the way, with the only saving grace being the otherwise precise Shyamalan direction. But that's not to say that it wasn't boring or that he was directing a pointless narrative. The concept was slightly interesting but handled in such a ridiculously cack-handed and misjudged manner that I doubt anyone would dare suggest this idea again, let alone finance of film it.
I won't give away the "Twist", if you would call it that, but it is original, I grant you that, but interesting enough to support a movie? No way. Nor was anything else about this film.
Michael Packner (32 KP) rated Halloween (2018) in Movies
Jun 15, 2019 (Updated Jun 15, 2019)
The film starts off really good. The first half of the film is definitely quality. (1 more)
The strongest point of the film is an absolutely beautiful and brutal tracking shot that lasts about two minutes. Really epic stuff.
The second half of the film. At about halfway the film hits a wall and freefalls from there. (3 more)
Vicki's death scene is played for cheap laughs when the scene should've been dead serious. This is the start of the freefall.
The twist with the "New Loomis" is BRUTALLY awful.
The "epic" final act and long awaited showdown between Laurie and Michael is epically meh.
Before I start I want to qualify this by saying other than the first two films which are classics, I really do not like this series. It's overrated and boring and truthfully everything past part 2 is mediocre to crap, so I went into this honestly expecting to hate it and watched it more for my wife than myself. That being said, the first half hour I felt like I was right, but then it did get better. This was a better sequel than the previous ones. Michael is evil again and he is BRUTAL. The use of comedy in this film was overdone to a huge fault, especially one kill scene where they used comedy to absolutely kill the tension and the scene came off absolutely disrespectful and just mean spirited in a bad way. The new Loomis subplot was awful. Why? Just why? A father with his son makes the dumbest decision ever in a horror movie and that's ok, but people forgive it because it's this franchise. I did enjoy the final showdown between Michael and Laurie though so that's a positive. I rank the film as at least 3 or 4 in the franchise so there's that. At least I had fun and enjoyed it for the most part. Never let a comedian write a horror movie ever again.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Uncle Buck (1989) in Movies
Mar 18, 2018
Hilarious
My Movies 365 journey has taken me deep into 80's territory, with Uncle Buck being my next up to review. Released in 1989, it just squeezes into the decade but is perfect for it. The 80's trend is becoming clearer with every film I watch: It was all about having fun. No strong depth. No taking itself too seriously. If you were going to see a film in the 80's, you were there for the sole purpose of having a good time. Did I have a good time watching Uncle Buck? Absolutely!
The film is simple in its design, yet still manages to have a ton of classic scenes. How many takes do you think it took to film the memorable Q&A scene with John Candy and McCauley Caulkin? I crack up just thinking about it so I can only imagine how hard it was for them. And Uncle Buck's car? Oh my God, the car! Hooptiest of hoopties. I don't know what's funnier, hearing its shotgun exhaust for the first time or watching everyone scatter for their lives.
Uncle Buck is called in to help babysit after his brother and sister-in-law have to go out of town to deal with an emergency. Other than the fact that there's no real substance to the movie, I don't really have anything bad to say about it. John Candy is perfect in his role as Buck. He's lived a life full of mistakes, but he's a great guy at heart. How can you not love a guy that will make you table-sized pancakes and punch out a clown for your birthday? My Favorite Line: "Take this quarter, go downtown, and have a rat gnaw that thing off your face!"
Recommended by an Uncle Kory, I'm so glad Uncle Buck made it's way onto my movie list. I'm giving it an 85.
The film is simple in its design, yet still manages to have a ton of classic scenes. How many takes do you think it took to film the memorable Q&A scene with John Candy and McCauley Caulkin? I crack up just thinking about it so I can only imagine how hard it was for them. And Uncle Buck's car? Oh my God, the car! Hooptiest of hoopties. I don't know what's funnier, hearing its shotgun exhaust for the first time or watching everyone scatter for their lives.
Uncle Buck is called in to help babysit after his brother and sister-in-law have to go out of town to deal with an emergency. Other than the fact that there's no real substance to the movie, I don't really have anything bad to say about it. John Candy is perfect in his role as Buck. He's lived a life full of mistakes, but he's a great guy at heart. How can you not love a guy that will make you table-sized pancakes and punch out a clown for your birthday? My Favorite Line: "Take this quarter, go downtown, and have a rat gnaw that thing off your face!"
Recommended by an Uncle Kory, I'm so glad Uncle Buck made it's way onto my movie list. I'm giving it an 85.
Nick Smallwood (0 KP) rated Black Panther (2018) in Movies
Mar 10, 2018
Black Panther was a great movie with very few negatives to it. Marvel movies being what they are, there are definitely similarities to be drawn between BP and other recent MCU entries, mostly along the lines of Spider-Man: Homecoming and Thor: Ragnarok.
Ryan Coogler very adeptly introduces a brand new culture, a brand new nation, to the Marvel Universe, finally pulling back the veil on Wakanda itself after many hints and Easter eggs.
Fresh from his appearance in Captain America: Civil War, which is recapped very briefly in the beginning of the film, Black Panther comes home to be declared King after a quick action scene that shows Black Panther in action, shot VERY well while maintaining the Marvel humor shown in Ragnarok. "Don't freeze."
As the movie progresses and we're introduced to Michael B. Jordan's villain of the film, we are given an empathetic villain we can eventually sympathize with, albeit knowing full and well that he is still the bad guy who needs to be foiled.
Some character highlights of the film include Princess Shuri, a welcome addition to the MCU, the return of Ulysses Claue from Avengers: Age of Ultron and Everett Ross from Captain America: Civil War, and newcomer M'Baku, who was very tastefully adapted for the film without calling him Man-Ape.
The action scenes were well done, Wakanda showed cultural depth, the plot was well-developed and every scene that wasn't self-explained was eventually paid off later on.
This being a comic book film, it translated Wakanda well, and shows Marvel has found their groove. The distractions I have are few and far between, mostly just stemming from Killmonger's use of a Black Panther suit (Iron Monger, The Abomination, The Red Skull, and Kaecillius all come to mind as mirrored versions of the heroes) and some spotty pacing between some scenes.
Also.
Didn't expect it, didn't see it in trailers, so mild spoilers, but.
Battle Rhinos.
Awesome.
Ryan Coogler very adeptly introduces a brand new culture, a brand new nation, to the Marvel Universe, finally pulling back the veil on Wakanda itself after many hints and Easter eggs.
Fresh from his appearance in Captain America: Civil War, which is recapped very briefly in the beginning of the film, Black Panther comes home to be declared King after a quick action scene that shows Black Panther in action, shot VERY well while maintaining the Marvel humor shown in Ragnarok. "Don't freeze."
As the movie progresses and we're introduced to Michael B. Jordan's villain of the film, we are given an empathetic villain we can eventually sympathize with, albeit knowing full and well that he is still the bad guy who needs to be foiled.
Some character highlights of the film include Princess Shuri, a welcome addition to the MCU, the return of Ulysses Claue from Avengers: Age of Ultron and Everett Ross from Captain America: Civil War, and newcomer M'Baku, who was very tastefully adapted for the film without calling him Man-Ape.
The action scenes were well done, Wakanda showed cultural depth, the plot was well-developed and every scene that wasn't self-explained was eventually paid off later on.
This being a comic book film, it translated Wakanda well, and shows Marvel has found their groove. The distractions I have are few and far between, mostly just stemming from Killmonger's use of a Black Panther suit (Iron Monger, The Abomination, The Red Skull, and Kaecillius all come to mind as mirrored versions of the heroes) and some spotty pacing between some scenes.
Also.
Didn't expect it, didn't see it in trailers, so mild spoilers, but.
Battle Rhinos.
Awesome.
Steve Fearon (84 KP) rated Bad Times at the El Royale (2018) in Movies
Oct 19, 2018
The Cast (1 more)
Especially Jeff Bridges
Overlong (1 more)
Marketing a little misleading
Not Bad (times at the El Royale)
This was a film suggested by my better half, on the basis of the trailer, excellent cast, and her love for Chris Hemsworth, which to be fair is justified, the guy's a looker.
The trailer had made it look like fun whoddunit, with a colourful cast of characters, a great group of actors, and a fairly lighthearted mystery, and this ticked all the right boxes for us, so along we went.
However, this movie gets pretty damn dark, fairly violent and pretty relentless, and at 140 minutes, this is a serious film.
There is a lot of love for Tarantino in "El Royale", with the style reminiscent of some of his work, though with a bit less feel for comedy, and bigger penchant for musical numbers.
It is enjoyable, and is broken up regularly by switching perspectives to show the viewer the backstory of the main characters, so it doesn't necessarily feel as long as its 140 minutes suggest.
However, it does begin to meander at times, and if it wasn't for the god-like charm of Jeff Bridges, the earnest performance of John Hamm or the captivating allure of Chris Hemsworth in particular, these scenes could have become unbearable.
Cynthia Erivo was spectacular as the soulful lounge singer, and she more than held her own against some of hollywood's finest, and I look forward to seeing her in more big movies in future.
The highlight for me (Chris Hemsworth dancing was hers) was without a doubt Jeff Bridges, the guy can just keep me entertained, no matter the script, no matter the setting, he is just a quality guy, and I loved his performance.
This is a solid 6/10 movie for me, entertaining, happy to watch it once, but I doubt I will watch it again.
The trailer had made it look like fun whoddunit, with a colourful cast of characters, a great group of actors, and a fairly lighthearted mystery, and this ticked all the right boxes for us, so along we went.
However, this movie gets pretty damn dark, fairly violent and pretty relentless, and at 140 minutes, this is a serious film.
There is a lot of love for Tarantino in "El Royale", with the style reminiscent of some of his work, though with a bit less feel for comedy, and bigger penchant for musical numbers.
It is enjoyable, and is broken up regularly by switching perspectives to show the viewer the backstory of the main characters, so it doesn't necessarily feel as long as its 140 minutes suggest.
However, it does begin to meander at times, and if it wasn't for the god-like charm of Jeff Bridges, the earnest performance of John Hamm or the captivating allure of Chris Hemsworth in particular, these scenes could have become unbearable.
Cynthia Erivo was spectacular as the soulful lounge singer, and she more than held her own against some of hollywood's finest, and I look forward to seeing her in more big movies in future.
The highlight for me (Chris Hemsworth dancing was hers) was without a doubt Jeff Bridges, the guy can just keep me entertained, no matter the script, no matter the setting, he is just a quality guy, and I loved his performance.
This is a solid 6/10 movie for me, entertaining, happy to watch it once, but I doubt I will watch it again.