Search
Search results
Awix (3310 KP) rated Z For Zachariah (2015) in Movies
Sep 5, 2020
Earnest, very loose adaptation of Robert C O'Brien's novel. A young woman growing up alone after a nuclear holocaust must adapt to the appearance of two men in the valley where she lives.
I say 'very loose' because after a while this essentially bears no more resemblance to the source novel than it does to any of a number of other films in a similar vein: the movie adds a new character (which is a big deal in a story which originally only had two). What follows is thoughtful and well-made, clearly favouring Robbie's attempts to display her range, and the performances aren't actively bad. Even if you haven't seen other films dealing with this kind of scenario (and there have been a few!), the slowness and solemnity of this movie may get a bit wearisome after an while; others may baulk at the lack of an actual proper ending. Passes the time, though.
I say 'very loose' because after a while this essentially bears no more resemblance to the source novel than it does to any of a number of other films in a similar vein: the movie adds a new character (which is a big deal in a story which originally only had two). What follows is thoughtful and well-made, clearly favouring Robbie's attempts to display her range, and the performances aren't actively bad. Even if you haven't seen other films dealing with this kind of scenario (and there have been a few!), the slowness and solemnity of this movie may get a bit wearisome after an while; others may baulk at the lack of an actual proper ending. Passes the time, though.
Dork_knight74 (881 KP) rated The Lodge (2019) in Movies
May 7, 2020
Smh
Contains spoilers, click to show
So a father leaves his kids-with a woman he's planning to marry- for a few days in a remote cabin. Just when his kids need him most(because their mother killed herself in the beginning) and goes off to work(at Christmas time). Somehow, he has ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA idea just how mentally damaged/unstable she is. This movie eas a slow, tedious, mind-numbing burn that just fizzles out in the end(horrible ending). The acting was decent and the cinematography was too. It had creep factor, I'll give it that, but the story was just... sad. These kids go through hell through pretty much the entire film because of this psychotic ex-cultist and it ends up being their last days. You genuinely feel bad for them, but overall this was just a weird movie strangely pieced together that built up to....nothing. Her craziness wins out. NOT worth a watch.
Lou Grande (148 KP) rated Latter Days (2004) in Movies
Jun 20, 2018
Contains spoilers, click to show
I saw this movie back when it was released fourteen years ago, when I was still young and had faith in things. I picked it up again to see if it held up, and you know? It's not bad. Usually romantic comedies don't do much for me, gay or straight, but I have a thing for Mormons--what can I say?
So Christian is a gay party boy livin' it up in LA, but ultimately lacking in purpose and drive. Aaron is a Mormon missionary from Iowa, who experiences culture shock and desire for the first time, because of course they become neighbors and hijinks ensue. Fun fact! This movie also stars Joseph Gorgon-Levitt as a total butt, which is quite a contrast to his role in Mysterious Skin, another gay-themed movie which came out in the same year.
The acting is actually not as horrible as you would think from the production value/budget, and the story is typical romantic comedy fare. Still, I think it would strike a chord with anyone who is queer and was brought up in a religious household. It doesn't shy away from how agonizing it can be to be betrayed by family, especially fourteen years ago. And you know, some of the dialogue is actually really poignant. If you can get over the vaguely "afterschool special" feeling of this movie, it's definitely worth a watch.
(It has a happy ending!)
So Christian is a gay party boy livin' it up in LA, but ultimately lacking in purpose and drive. Aaron is a Mormon missionary from Iowa, who experiences culture shock and desire for the first time, because of course they become neighbors and hijinks ensue. Fun fact! This movie also stars Joseph Gorgon-Levitt as a total butt, which is quite a contrast to his role in Mysterious Skin, another gay-themed movie which came out in the same year.
The acting is actually not as horrible as you would think from the production value/budget, and the story is typical romantic comedy fare. Still, I think it would strike a chord with anyone who is queer and was brought up in a religious household. It doesn't shy away from how agonizing it can be to be betrayed by family, especially fourteen years ago. And you know, some of the dialogue is actually really poignant. If you can get over the vaguely "afterschool special" feeling of this movie, it's definitely worth a watch.
(It has a happy ending!)
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Book of Life (2014) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
The Book of Life is an animated film with some big names lending their voices to the characters.
Channing Tatum, Zoe Saldana, Diego Luna, Christina Applegate, Ice Cube, Cheech Marin, Kate del Castillo, and Ron Perlman are all part of the voice cast.
The movie had lots of movement, tons of bright colours, and great music.
The story was good, but I think maybe a bit ‘too much’ for children my sons age (6). He seemed to like it, despite some of the moments that made him uncomfortable or scared.
The tale is of good vs bad and bravado vs true courage and life long friendships.
This movie takes place in long-ago Mexico and revolves around The Day of the Dead. Two boys, one an aspiring bull fighter and guitar player named Manolo (Diego Luna) and one a would-be champion and defender of the town named Joaquin (Channing Tatum), are in love with the same girl, a feisty girl named Maria (Zoe Saldana).
We follow their life paths as the gods above, La Muerta and Xibalba, place wagers on the outcome of the love triangle.
Xibalba cheats in order to win the bet, and the remainder if the film is spent watching Manolo trying to reunite with his true love, Maria.
The movie is fast paced and the music really helps bring it together and help tell the tale.
I would give this movie 3.5 out of 5 stars.
Channing Tatum, Zoe Saldana, Diego Luna, Christina Applegate, Ice Cube, Cheech Marin, Kate del Castillo, and Ron Perlman are all part of the voice cast.
The movie had lots of movement, tons of bright colours, and great music.
The story was good, but I think maybe a bit ‘too much’ for children my sons age (6). He seemed to like it, despite some of the moments that made him uncomfortable or scared.
The tale is of good vs bad and bravado vs true courage and life long friendships.
This movie takes place in long-ago Mexico and revolves around The Day of the Dead. Two boys, one an aspiring bull fighter and guitar player named Manolo (Diego Luna) and one a would-be champion and defender of the town named Joaquin (Channing Tatum), are in love with the same girl, a feisty girl named Maria (Zoe Saldana).
We follow their life paths as the gods above, La Muerta and Xibalba, place wagers on the outcome of the love triangle.
Xibalba cheats in order to win the bet, and the remainder if the film is spent watching Manolo trying to reunite with his true love, Maria.
The movie is fast paced and the music really helps bring it together and help tell the tale.
I would give this movie 3.5 out of 5 stars.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Live Free or Die Hard (2007) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
Sent to collect a computer hacker wanted for questioning by the FBI, McClane gets more than he bargained for when he interrupts the efforts of a group of mercenaries mid-assassination plan.
I don't know what it is with Die Hard ladies renouncing the McClane name, I'm not sure I'd prefer Gennaro.
After 4.0 came out it definitely became my favourite. I like the more modern subject matter mixed with some traditional Die Hard personal grudge violence. Yet again we get a fun little double act, but this time with the slightly innocent Farrell with the technophobe McClane.
This movie shines a light on shoddy building work. I worry about the state of Farrell's whole building if McClane can punch through the (admittedly partly destroyed) wall to pull a bad guy's head through it.
Why do I like this film? Because he kills a helicopter with a car. I'm fairly sure that it wouldn't have worked, but I love the movie magic that made me believe it could. I presume that this is the same movie magic that allowed McClane to drive a car through a building and drive it up Maggie Q's... well, anyway...
While there's movie magic there's also completely ridiculous stuff... I mean come on... who's going to believe that the guy at Woodlawn managed to plug all those cables in the right way round first try?! What a joke!
I don't know what it is with Die Hard ladies renouncing the McClane name, I'm not sure I'd prefer Gennaro.
After 4.0 came out it definitely became my favourite. I like the more modern subject matter mixed with some traditional Die Hard personal grudge violence. Yet again we get a fun little double act, but this time with the slightly innocent Farrell with the technophobe McClane.
This movie shines a light on shoddy building work. I worry about the state of Farrell's whole building if McClane can punch through the (admittedly partly destroyed) wall to pull a bad guy's head through it.
Why do I like this film? Because he kills a helicopter with a car. I'm fairly sure that it wouldn't have worked, but I love the movie magic that made me believe it could. I presume that this is the same movie magic that allowed McClane to drive a car through a building and drive it up Maggie Q's... well, anyway...
While there's movie magic there's also completely ridiculous stuff... I mean come on... who's going to believe that the guy at Woodlawn managed to plug all those cables in the right way round first try?! What a joke!
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Crank (2006) in Movies
Jun 26, 2020
Quick Pacing, Bad Movie
When a former hitman’s enemies inject him with a lethal poison that will stop his heart if it goes below an active rate, that hitman Chev Chelios is on a race to find the antidote while keeping his heart pumping at the same time.
Acting: 10
I could think of worse actors to play the role of Chev outside of Jason Statham. He seems like he was made for this type of movie. He brings a successful intensity to the role that kicks the movie into a new gear. Unfortunately it wasn’t enough to save the film as a whole. While other performances didn’t necessarily warrant a 10, Chev is pretty much the entire centerpiece so I’m basing the score off Statham’s performance alone.
Beginning: 10
I honestly didn’t hate how the movie began. It actually gets off to a pretty fast start only to let me down later. If only I knew what I was getting myself into.
Characters: 1
Cinematography/Visuals: 7
For what' it’s worth, the film does a good job of making you feel like you are in Chelios’ shoes. The camera relies on close up shots and jarring movement when Chelios has to “charge up”. The action is also captured fairly well, giving you a true sense of being in the moment.
Conflict: 10
Consistent action abounds throughout the movie. In addition to Chelios kicking much ass, there’s also the matter of him trying to keep his heart pumping while he finds the antidote. There is more than enough conflict to drive the story.
Entertainment Value: 6
While there are flashes of greatness in Crank, much of it is hyped up hyperbole so extreme it makes the movie really hard to get into. I lost count of the number of times I rolled my eyes throughout the movie. What did intrigue me throughout was just how much crazier the movie could potentially get.
Memorability: 4
Pace: 10
Plot: 0
What a dumbass story. That is all.
Resolution: 6
I give it props for an inventive ending. However, it wasn’t a successful resolution in my opinion. We followed Chelios on this entire journey for it to come to this? Nah, just…nah.
Overall: 64
You could tell this movie was going to be a mess from the trailer. Surprisingly enough it has a positive rating on Rotten Tomatoes and it seems to have a cult following. I really don’t get it, even as an action lover. It’s a pass for me.
Acting: 10
I could think of worse actors to play the role of Chev outside of Jason Statham. He seems like he was made for this type of movie. He brings a successful intensity to the role that kicks the movie into a new gear. Unfortunately it wasn’t enough to save the film as a whole. While other performances didn’t necessarily warrant a 10, Chev is pretty much the entire centerpiece so I’m basing the score off Statham’s performance alone.
Beginning: 10
I honestly didn’t hate how the movie began. It actually gets off to a pretty fast start only to let me down later. If only I knew what I was getting myself into.
Characters: 1
Cinematography/Visuals: 7
For what' it’s worth, the film does a good job of making you feel like you are in Chelios’ shoes. The camera relies on close up shots and jarring movement when Chelios has to “charge up”. The action is also captured fairly well, giving you a true sense of being in the moment.
Conflict: 10
Consistent action abounds throughout the movie. In addition to Chelios kicking much ass, there’s also the matter of him trying to keep his heart pumping while he finds the antidote. There is more than enough conflict to drive the story.
Entertainment Value: 6
While there are flashes of greatness in Crank, much of it is hyped up hyperbole so extreme it makes the movie really hard to get into. I lost count of the number of times I rolled my eyes throughout the movie. What did intrigue me throughout was just how much crazier the movie could potentially get.
Memorability: 4
Pace: 10
Plot: 0
What a dumbass story. That is all.
Resolution: 6
I give it props for an inventive ending. However, it wasn’t a successful resolution in my opinion. We followed Chelios on this entire journey for it to come to this? Nah, just…nah.
Overall: 64
You could tell this movie was going to be a mess from the trailer. Surprisingly enough it has a positive rating on Rotten Tomatoes and it seems to have a cult following. I really don’t get it, even as an action lover. It’s a pass for me.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Joker (2019) in Movies
Oct 8, 2019 (Updated Oct 8, 2019)
Hmm...
A couple of years ago Joaquin Phoenix starred in a movie called You Were Never Really Here. It was directed by Lynne Ramsay and from the trailers looked like it could be something pretty great. Unfortunately when I saw the movie, I felt that it was nothing more than a poor man's Taxi Driver, with the same regurgitated ideas and not much more to say.
Then I saw 2019's Joker.
Let's forget about the incredibly engaging performances and solid technical filmmaking elements in this movie for a minute. And let's forget all of the baggage and background lore that comes with the huge pop culture characters of the Joker, the Wayne family and Gotham City.
Instead, ask yourself this; if this you removed all of the DC elements from this movie, for example Gotham is just NYC, Thomas Wayne is just a rich powerful man running for office and Arthur Fleck is just a random loner with a screw loose, would this movie be remarkable in any way?
Like, overall I enjoyed this movie, but I enjoyed it because it was a version of my favourite fictional character that I hadn't seen before, but it wasn't a story that I haven't seen before outside of a Joker story. I liked the movie because it reminded me HEAVILY of Taxi Driver, which is one of my favourite movies of all time, but I still prefer Taxi Driver.
I can't give the movie a bad review because it was clearly well made by a bunch of very talented people and I did enjoy my time with it, but after reading the intensely positive reviews this thing got at the film festivals I was looking for something more than a story I have seen before done better decades ago.
At the same time though, I am definitely going to need a second viewing. I have hardly stopped thinking and talking about the movie since I seen it and it has led to me writing my first review on this website in 5 months, so there is something to be said about that element of it.
My rating may change after a second viewing, but for now this is an enjoyable retread of a story we have seen before told several times over. Just because you throw a popular comic book character's name over the top of it, is that enough to make it more worthwhile than all of the other Taxi Driver homages we have gotten over the years?
Then I saw 2019's Joker.
Let's forget about the incredibly engaging performances and solid technical filmmaking elements in this movie for a minute. And let's forget all of the baggage and background lore that comes with the huge pop culture characters of the Joker, the Wayne family and Gotham City.
Instead, ask yourself this; if this you removed all of the DC elements from this movie, for example Gotham is just NYC, Thomas Wayne is just a rich powerful man running for office and Arthur Fleck is just a random loner with a screw loose, would this movie be remarkable in any way?
Like, overall I enjoyed this movie, but I enjoyed it because it was a version of my favourite fictional character that I hadn't seen before, but it wasn't a story that I haven't seen before outside of a Joker story. I liked the movie because it reminded me HEAVILY of Taxi Driver, which is one of my favourite movies of all time, but I still prefer Taxi Driver.
I can't give the movie a bad review because it was clearly well made by a bunch of very talented people and I did enjoy my time with it, but after reading the intensely positive reviews this thing got at the film festivals I was looking for something more than a story I have seen before done better decades ago.
At the same time though, I am definitely going to need a second viewing. I have hardly stopped thinking and talking about the movie since I seen it and it has led to me writing my first review on this website in 5 months, so there is something to be said about that element of it.
My rating may change after a second viewing, but for now this is an enjoyable retread of a story we have seen before told several times over. Just because you throw a popular comic book character's name over the top of it, is that enough to make it more worthwhile than all of the other Taxi Driver homages we have gotten over the years?
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated Rambo: Last Blood (2019) in Movies
Jul 7, 2020
Rambo's Last Hurrah, Decent Action Flick
Rambo: Last Blood is a 2019 action movie directed by Adrian Grunberg, with screenplay written by both Sylvester Stallone and Matthew Cirulnick and story by Stallone and Dan Gordon. It was produced by Millennium Media, Balboa Productions and Templeton Media and distributed by Lionsgate with producers Avi Lerner, Kevin King Templeton, Yariv Lerner and Les Weldon. The film stars Sylvester Stallone, Paz Vega, Sergio Peris-Mencheta, and Adriana Barraza.
In Bowie, Arizona on his father's horse ranch John Rambo (Sylvester Stallone) lives with his old friend Maria (Adriana Barraza) and her granddaughter Gabriela (Yvette Monreal), eleven years after the events in Burma. Against Rambo and Maria's wishes, Gabriela ventures to Mexico to find her estranged father when her friend Gizelle finds his location. In Mexico she is drugged and kidnapped by a Mexican Cartel and now Rambo must do everything he can to save her.
I have to say that before I saw this movie I was hearing bad things from reviewers and critics. That made me lower expectations before I saw it but what I took away from it was that it was going to be lacking story wise but definitely shouldn't be lacking in action. Then I was very surprised to learn that the creator of Rambo said that the movie wasn't good. Now I wasn't sure if I was going to enjoy the movie. After watching it, I have to say that this movie was good. I have to be honest and say that usually I'm a sucker for revenge movies but this movie was better than what I thought it would be. The plot, of course was very simple but for the story it was trying to tell, it didn't need to be complicated. The acting was alright, some actors could have done a better job. Stallone did a decent job reprising John Rambo. The setting when they travel to Mexico was pretty realistic and I really liked his ranch in Arizona that was the backdrop for the third act of the movie. The action was really brutal and gory which was expected as the last installment in the franchise Rambo was also equally brutal. All in all I thought this movie was pretty good, I give it a 7/10.
In Bowie, Arizona on his father's horse ranch John Rambo (Sylvester Stallone) lives with his old friend Maria (Adriana Barraza) and her granddaughter Gabriela (Yvette Monreal), eleven years after the events in Burma. Against Rambo and Maria's wishes, Gabriela ventures to Mexico to find her estranged father when her friend Gizelle finds his location. In Mexico she is drugged and kidnapped by a Mexican Cartel and now Rambo must do everything he can to save her.
I have to say that before I saw this movie I was hearing bad things from reviewers and critics. That made me lower expectations before I saw it but what I took away from it was that it was going to be lacking story wise but definitely shouldn't be lacking in action. Then I was very surprised to learn that the creator of Rambo said that the movie wasn't good. Now I wasn't sure if I was going to enjoy the movie. After watching it, I have to say that this movie was good. I have to be honest and say that usually I'm a sucker for revenge movies but this movie was better than what I thought it would be. The plot, of course was very simple but for the story it was trying to tell, it didn't need to be complicated. The acting was alright, some actors could have done a better job. Stallone did a decent job reprising John Rambo. The setting when they travel to Mexico was pretty realistic and I really liked his ranch in Arizona that was the backdrop for the third act of the movie. The action was really brutal and gory which was expected as the last installment in the franchise Rambo was also equally brutal. All in all I thought this movie was pretty good, I give it a 7/10.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Hellboy (2019) in Movies
Apr 17, 2019 (Updated Apr 17, 2019)
The script (4 more)
The CGI
The editing
The performances
Everything else
Actual Hell
If the Hellboy 2019 movie has one thing going for it, it's that it's impressive. It is impressive in the sense that it actually made me question the futility of time and why I was wasting my short time on this earth watching this atrocious piece of trash. There were several times when I was watching the film that I actually couldn't bring myself to believe how bad what I was witnessing onscreen really was. This might be the worst film I have ever seen.
It has without a doubt taken the crown of the worst superhero movie ever made from Fan4stic and is downright insulting. I cannot believe that they chose to make this dogshit over another one with Ron Perlman and Del Toro. Almost every single aspect of this movie is garbage and there are hardly any redeeming features.
Let's talk about the main character, this movie's version of Hellboy. We all knew going in that David Harbour had some pretty big shoes to fill left by Perlman and in Harbour's defence, pretty much the only slightly positive aspect of this thing is the fact that you can tell that Harbour is doing the very best with the piss poor material he has been given to work with. Most of his lines are awful and the way that his character is written as a moaning, whiny bitch is actually insulting to the character. Also, the excessive makeup he is wearing means that he is hardly able to emote with his mouth. When he is talking, his mouth simply opens and closes like a puppet and it is painfully obvious that the dialogue has been dubbed in later and it's not even been done very well. The other slight positive in this movie is seeing Hellboy in his full demonic getup with long horns and donning the flaming crown and sword was pretty cool, unfortunately this is only a fleeting glimpse of coolness before we get right back to the crap.
The other memorable part of the Del Toro Hellboy movies was the endearing supporting cast, unfortunately they have been substituted with an insufferable lot of replacements. The actress playing Alice may give the worst performance that I have ever seen in a comic book movie, (and I saw Polar!) Every single line that she uttered was extremely cringe-worthy and poorly delivered. Daniel Dae Kim was almost as bad as Hellboy's other sidekick. Again, a lot of his lines were ADR'd in later and it is really shoddily done. Ian McShane plays Broom, the scientist that found Hellboy and adopted him and he is sleepwalking his way through this role for the sake of an easy paycheck. As is Milla Jovovich, she plays a stereotypical villainous witch and she does nothing here that we haven't seen her do before in other movies.
Over my years of watching almost every comic book movie that releases, I have seen my fair share of cheap, cartoony looking CGI, but this takes the cake. Almost every scene in the movie features some kind of CGI creature and they are all on a similar level of quality to an unfinished student project. One of the moments it really stood out was the giant fight, where we were subjected to not only one bad CGI giant, but three of them. The scene is also shot in broad daylight, which really does the bad CGI no favours. Not once, did anything in this movie look better than anything in the Del Toro movies which came out 10+ years ago.
I'm going to spoil something here, because seriously who gives a fuck at this point? The absolute worst part of CGI though in the entire movie, is undoubtedly during one of the final scenes in the movie where Ian McShane comes back to speak to Hellboy as a ghost. The CG in this scene is genuinely on par with the Rock's CG in in the Scorpion King. Yes, it really is that bad.
The soundtrack is so misused here also. The songs themselves that are featured are all half decent songs, but they do not work in the context of this film and they add absolutely nothing to the scenes that they are used in. The editing is also horrible, there were several times that I was reminded of the cheap editing in shows like Buffy The Vampire Slayer.
The last thing that I want to talk about is the tone and humour, (or lack of,) present throughout the film. The movie opens with a flashback scene showing King Arthur chopping up the witch. The scene is being narrated by Ian McShane and it is chock-full of diabolically awful dialogue and insufferably cheesy line delivery. Whilst watching it I thought, "Oh they are really hamming it up here and going for a really corny tone for these flashback scenes." I then swiftly came to the soul-crushing conclusion that no, this was how the next 2 hours of this movie was going to go. The awful sense of humour is actually comparable to that in a poor quality kids film, with gross out burp and kiss jokes to boot. What happened to the darker, more horror orientated tone that we were teased with when the movie was in pre-production? Any semblance of that is sorely lacking here and it is a shame because I would have quite liked to have seen that movie and there is a good chance that it would have been a lot better than this dumpster fire.
Overall, please don't see this unless you hate yourself. It is two hours of your life that would be better spent doing literally anything else. At the end it has the audacity to tease a sequel which, (if there is a God,) will never happen.
It has without a doubt taken the crown of the worst superhero movie ever made from Fan4stic and is downright insulting. I cannot believe that they chose to make this dogshit over another one with Ron Perlman and Del Toro. Almost every single aspect of this movie is garbage and there are hardly any redeeming features.
Let's talk about the main character, this movie's version of Hellboy. We all knew going in that David Harbour had some pretty big shoes to fill left by Perlman and in Harbour's defence, pretty much the only slightly positive aspect of this thing is the fact that you can tell that Harbour is doing the very best with the piss poor material he has been given to work with. Most of his lines are awful and the way that his character is written as a moaning, whiny bitch is actually insulting to the character. Also, the excessive makeup he is wearing means that he is hardly able to emote with his mouth. When he is talking, his mouth simply opens and closes like a puppet and it is painfully obvious that the dialogue has been dubbed in later and it's not even been done very well. The other slight positive in this movie is seeing Hellboy in his full demonic getup with long horns and donning the flaming crown and sword was pretty cool, unfortunately this is only a fleeting glimpse of coolness before we get right back to the crap.
The other memorable part of the Del Toro Hellboy movies was the endearing supporting cast, unfortunately they have been substituted with an insufferable lot of replacements. The actress playing Alice may give the worst performance that I have ever seen in a comic book movie, (and I saw Polar!) Every single line that she uttered was extremely cringe-worthy and poorly delivered. Daniel Dae Kim was almost as bad as Hellboy's other sidekick. Again, a lot of his lines were ADR'd in later and it is really shoddily done. Ian McShane plays Broom, the scientist that found Hellboy and adopted him and he is sleepwalking his way through this role for the sake of an easy paycheck. As is Milla Jovovich, she plays a stereotypical villainous witch and she does nothing here that we haven't seen her do before in other movies.
Over my years of watching almost every comic book movie that releases, I have seen my fair share of cheap, cartoony looking CGI, but this takes the cake. Almost every scene in the movie features some kind of CGI creature and they are all on a similar level of quality to an unfinished student project. One of the moments it really stood out was the giant fight, where we were subjected to not only one bad CGI giant, but three of them. The scene is also shot in broad daylight, which really does the bad CGI no favours. Not once, did anything in this movie look better than anything in the Del Toro movies which came out 10+ years ago.
I'm going to spoil something here, because seriously who gives a fuck at this point? The absolute worst part of CGI though in the entire movie, is undoubtedly during one of the final scenes in the movie where Ian McShane comes back to speak to Hellboy as a ghost. The CG in this scene is genuinely on par with the Rock's CG in in the Scorpion King. Yes, it really is that bad.
The soundtrack is so misused here also. The songs themselves that are featured are all half decent songs, but they do not work in the context of this film and they add absolutely nothing to the scenes that they are used in. The editing is also horrible, there were several times that I was reminded of the cheap editing in shows like Buffy The Vampire Slayer.
The last thing that I want to talk about is the tone and humour, (or lack of,) present throughout the film. The movie opens with a flashback scene showing King Arthur chopping up the witch. The scene is being narrated by Ian McShane and it is chock-full of diabolically awful dialogue and insufferably cheesy line delivery. Whilst watching it I thought, "Oh they are really hamming it up here and going for a really corny tone for these flashback scenes." I then swiftly came to the soul-crushing conclusion that no, this was how the next 2 hours of this movie was going to go. The awful sense of humour is actually comparable to that in a poor quality kids film, with gross out burp and kiss jokes to boot. What happened to the darker, more horror orientated tone that we were teased with when the movie was in pre-production? Any semblance of that is sorely lacking here and it is a shame because I would have quite liked to have seen that movie and there is a good chance that it would have been a lot better than this dumpster fire.
Overall, please don't see this unless you hate yourself. It is two hours of your life that would be better spent doing literally anything else. At the end it has the audacity to tease a sequel which, (if there is a God,) will never happen.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Bad Boys II (2003) in Movies
Apr 2, 2020
Decent but Definitely the Worst of the Trilogy
Narcotics detectives Mike Lowrey (Will Smith) and Marcus Burnett (Martin Lawrence) are back getting into a heap of shit as they try and take down an ecstasy ring.
Acting: 9
You have to love the performances of Lawrence and Smith as they know how to carry a movie between the two of them. Their chemistry is amazing and they do a wonderful job of balancing each other out, particularly in this film were Smith is more of a shoot-first type while Lawrence’s role is about finding peace and zen. Joe Pantoliano makes a return as Captain Howard, making me crack up everytime he opens his mouth to yell at Lowrey and Burnett for screwing up yet again.
The one role I just couldn’t let sneak past was Jordi Molla playing Johnny Tapia. Terrible doesn’t even begin to describe his performance. It feels too cliche and way overdone, detracting from important scenes at times. Wasn’t a fan in the slightest.
Beginning: 7
While I did appreciate the action at the beginning of the movie, there was just too much going on for me to really settle in and get into it. It’s hard to really understand up from down in the first ten minutes which carries on as the movie progresses as well. Less can be more sometimes, but it feels like in this instance, director Michael Bay called for more of everything.
Characters: 9
Cinematography/Visuals: 6
Bad Boys II has its moments cinematically. The mortuary scene and the scene in the abandoned house are two that really stand out for me. They were shot in such a way that they are hard to forget. From an overall standpoint, I am not a fan of the overdose of slowmo that Bay loves to do. It becomes tedious to the brain and drags the movie out longer than it needs to be. And this movie already has enough time constraints as it is.
Conflict: 10
Action abounds in this second installment from shootouts to car chases to explosions on top of explosions. If you are an action junky, this movie will not disappoint. As much as I rag on Bay (and, no he’s not my favorite director), he knows how to make a scene pop and make traditional action sets feel extremely original. Even as I’m typing this, I can’t forget the highway scene where the bad guys have hijacked a car-carrying truck and they start to release the cars as they speed down the highway. It’s absolute calamity.
Entertainment Value: 7
Memorability: 8
Pace: 7
Bay does his best to keep things fresh, but it’s hard to hide from the fact that this is all about action then dialogue then right back to action. It gets a bit repetitive at times, but I will also admit that it may have something to do with the fact that I’ve watched a shit ton of movies recently (what else is new?). When Cuba gets mentioned and you realize the movie is only two thirds of the way over when it should be finished, that’s when things really slowed down for me even more. You can absolutely cut thirty minutes from this movie and it would be phenomenal, possibly a classic.
Plot: 6
Decent enough story, but nothing that’s going to win an Oscar. I felt corners were cut in spots as there were times where I was trying to figure out, “Why the hell is this happening now?” I also didn’t appreciate some of the cheats, which is a term I use to refer to spots in the movie that conveniently happen for the sake of it being a good scene. Again, cut a half hour of this movie and I might be feeling differently overall.
Resolution: 4
The end was not only mad corny, but it didn’t feel like a real resolution. Not sure what they were going for here, but it didn’t work. The end didn’t really justify the length of what it took to get there.
Overall: 73
I know I know. You read through this review and it almost sounds like I hated Bad Boys II. Truth is, it wasn’t terrible. Would it be the first action movie I recommend? Absolutely not. On the flipside, I can definitely think of many that were worse. At the risk of losing all credibility (as if I had any to begin with), I actually enjoyed this movie more than I did The French Connection. Fight me.
Acting: 9
You have to love the performances of Lawrence and Smith as they know how to carry a movie between the two of them. Their chemistry is amazing and they do a wonderful job of balancing each other out, particularly in this film were Smith is more of a shoot-first type while Lawrence’s role is about finding peace and zen. Joe Pantoliano makes a return as Captain Howard, making me crack up everytime he opens his mouth to yell at Lowrey and Burnett for screwing up yet again.
The one role I just couldn’t let sneak past was Jordi Molla playing Johnny Tapia. Terrible doesn’t even begin to describe his performance. It feels too cliche and way overdone, detracting from important scenes at times. Wasn’t a fan in the slightest.
Beginning: 7
While I did appreciate the action at the beginning of the movie, there was just too much going on for me to really settle in and get into it. It’s hard to really understand up from down in the first ten minutes which carries on as the movie progresses as well. Less can be more sometimes, but it feels like in this instance, director Michael Bay called for more of everything.
Characters: 9
Cinematography/Visuals: 6
Bad Boys II has its moments cinematically. The mortuary scene and the scene in the abandoned house are two that really stand out for me. They were shot in such a way that they are hard to forget. From an overall standpoint, I am not a fan of the overdose of slowmo that Bay loves to do. It becomes tedious to the brain and drags the movie out longer than it needs to be. And this movie already has enough time constraints as it is.
Conflict: 10
Action abounds in this second installment from shootouts to car chases to explosions on top of explosions. If you are an action junky, this movie will not disappoint. As much as I rag on Bay (and, no he’s not my favorite director), he knows how to make a scene pop and make traditional action sets feel extremely original. Even as I’m typing this, I can’t forget the highway scene where the bad guys have hijacked a car-carrying truck and they start to release the cars as they speed down the highway. It’s absolute calamity.
Entertainment Value: 7
Memorability: 8
Pace: 7
Bay does his best to keep things fresh, but it’s hard to hide from the fact that this is all about action then dialogue then right back to action. It gets a bit repetitive at times, but I will also admit that it may have something to do with the fact that I’ve watched a shit ton of movies recently (what else is new?). When Cuba gets mentioned and you realize the movie is only two thirds of the way over when it should be finished, that’s when things really slowed down for me even more. You can absolutely cut thirty minutes from this movie and it would be phenomenal, possibly a classic.
Plot: 6
Decent enough story, but nothing that’s going to win an Oscar. I felt corners were cut in spots as there were times where I was trying to figure out, “Why the hell is this happening now?” I also didn’t appreciate some of the cheats, which is a term I use to refer to spots in the movie that conveniently happen for the sake of it being a good scene. Again, cut a half hour of this movie and I might be feeling differently overall.
Resolution: 4
The end was not only mad corny, but it didn’t feel like a real resolution. Not sure what they were going for here, but it didn’t work. The end didn’t really justify the length of what it took to get there.
Overall: 73
I know I know. You read through this review and it almost sounds like I hated Bad Boys II. Truth is, it wasn’t terrible. Would it be the first action movie I recommend? Absolutely not. On the flipside, I can definitely think of many that were worse. At the risk of losing all credibility (as if I had any to begin with), I actually enjoyed this movie more than I did The French Connection. Fight me.