Search
Search results
Susan (45 KP) rated Tombstone (1993) in Movies
Jul 3, 2017
The cast! Val Kilmer, Kurt Russell, Bill Paxton, Billy Bob Thorton, Billy Zane, Sam Elliot and some many more (2 more)
Val Kilmer as Doc Holliday was perfect.. No one could have done it better
Based on a true story and so well written.
The Perfect Cast Makes A Perfect Movie
Absolutely the best western IMO. It's not my usual genre but it is and will remain one of my all time favorite movies.
Dean (6921 KP) rated Three (2006) in Movies
Sep 1, 2018 (Updated Sep 1, 2018)
Seemed like a good idea...
Also known as Survival Island in America. Classed as an erotic thriller, unfortunately failing on both counts. Kelly Brook does get naked for about 2 mins of the film and that's it. There isn't much tension, or scares and it has a daft voodoo sub-plot. A similar and much better film, also starring Billy Zane, is Deep Calm.
Jordan Binkerd (567 KP) rated Holmes and Watson (2018) in Movies
Aug 5, 2019 (Updated Aug 6, 2019)
Decent cast (1 more)
The Billy Zane cameo was good.
This film is the one thing a Sherlock Holmes film should never be - dumb
Sherlock Holmes is a versatile character. You can try drama, action, even comedy, but there is one thing a Sherlock Holmes film should never be: stupid. Unfortunately, that's right where this one lands. Will Ferrell is capable of doing intelligent comedy, though it doesn't happen often - just look at Stranger Than Fiction. I have every belief that this could have been good if they'd chucked the script out the window and started over. As it is, Sherlock Holmes comes off as a moron half the time, which could be an interesting take if they committed to it, but they don't. The result is a muddled vehicle for jokes about Donald Trump, selfies, and sexting via telegram. A couple scenes seem to be trying to do for (to?) Guy Ritchie's Holmes movies what Men in Tights did for other Robin Hood films, but even that falls short. I'm not going to tell you to avoid the movie like the plague - I'm sure SOMEONE out there will enjoy it. I'm just not sure I care to associate with that person.
JT (287 KP) rated Predators (2010) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
Fans of the original Predator will no doubt have been excited to see the trailers for Predators, a script pulled from a filing cabinet in 1994 and given a 2010 make over by Robert Rodriguez, who produces, with Nimród Antal directing.
It was always going to be hard to top Schwarzenegger’s 1987 hit; John McTiernan had little special effects to work with but delivered an action/sci-fi masterpiece with a cast of mercenaries. When the sequel came along Schwarzenegger wanted no part of it, and so it was up to Danny Glover (I’m still getting to old for this shit) to battle on home turf, unsuccessfully in many people’s eyes.
In 2010 we’re back in the jungle only this is no ordinary jungle, this is home field advantage for the Predators. Again, a bunch of unknowns from different specially selected backgrounds are dropped in together to face a new breed of Predator, seemingly engaged in their own tribal turf war.
The story follows some similar paths to the original, macho heroes must work together to fight back, while at the same time avoid being picked off one at a time. The script is disjointed with no prior background as to why these bunch of cut throats have been pooled together, or who is behind it all.
That said those of us who can remember back as far as 1987 will enjoy a homage to the original with scenes like a spectacular waterfall jump, a Yazuka Vs Predator battle which gives us an insight as to what might have happened when Billy stayed behind on the bridge with nothing more than a huge knife for protection. All that and the immortal line “Kill me I’m here!”
Adrien Brody may not seem like your stereotypical action hero but he does do a half decent job, following along the action hero code of A) getting some serious gym time, B) lowering voice to a low growl and C) not giving a shit, then coming back and giving a shit!
The others, well they’re no Dutch, Mac, Billy or Zane but they are a new breed. There is the quiet and yet deadly Yakuza (Louis Ozawa Changchien), who is dressed for the most part in a smart grey suit and performs the sword-moves in a well choreographed human vs. Predator duel.
The rest are walking talking archetypal thugs, a Russian beef cake (Oleg Taktarov), a death row serial murderer (Walton Goggins), an African Death Squad killer (Mahershalalhashbaz Ali) and a cocaine cartel hatchet man (the legend that is Danny Trejo). There is also a rather pointless guest appearance which might lead us into a false sense of security as it is all but cut short, shame!
It was always going to be hard to top Schwarzenegger’s 1987 hit; John McTiernan had little special effects to work with but delivered an action/sci-fi masterpiece with a cast of mercenaries. When the sequel came along Schwarzenegger wanted no part of it, and so it was up to Danny Glover (I’m still getting to old for this shit) to battle on home turf, unsuccessfully in many people’s eyes.
In 2010 we’re back in the jungle only this is no ordinary jungle, this is home field advantage for the Predators. Again, a bunch of unknowns from different specially selected backgrounds are dropped in together to face a new breed of Predator, seemingly engaged in their own tribal turf war.
The story follows some similar paths to the original, macho heroes must work together to fight back, while at the same time avoid being picked off one at a time. The script is disjointed with no prior background as to why these bunch of cut throats have been pooled together, or who is behind it all.
That said those of us who can remember back as far as 1987 will enjoy a homage to the original with scenes like a spectacular waterfall jump, a Yazuka Vs Predator battle which gives us an insight as to what might have happened when Billy stayed behind on the bridge with nothing more than a huge knife for protection. All that and the immortal line “Kill me I’m here!”
Adrien Brody may not seem like your stereotypical action hero but he does do a half decent job, following along the action hero code of A) getting some serious gym time, B) lowering voice to a low growl and C) not giving a shit, then coming back and giving a shit!
The others, well they’re no Dutch, Mac, Billy or Zane but they are a new breed. There is the quiet and yet deadly Yakuza (Louis Ozawa Changchien), who is dressed for the most part in a smart grey suit and performs the sword-moves in a well choreographed human vs. Predator duel.
The rest are walking talking archetypal thugs, a Russian beef cake (Oleg Taktarov), a death row serial murderer (Walton Goggins), an African Death Squad killer (Mahershalalhashbaz Ali) and a cocaine cartel hatchet man (the legend that is Danny Trejo). There is also a rather pointless guest appearance which might lead us into a false sense of security as it is all but cut short, shame!
Jordan Binkerd (567 KP) rated The Scorpion King 3: Battle For Redemption (2012) in Movies
Oct 27, 2019
Victor Webster sells the fights (5 more)
Ron Perlman is never a bad thing.
Neither is Temura Morrison.
Billy Zane is comically evil
Krystal Vee and Selina Lo pull off their reason for being here - hot chicks kicking ass.
Nice scenery and sets
Victor Webster fails to sell being The Rock, even aside from skin ton (2 more)
The story and lore are all over the place, not helped by the setting
The Warriors of the book announcing themselves just felt silly and contrived
Muddies the franchise and lore
The longer this goes the more damage this franchise does to itself. Let's review what we've seen so far:
-The Mummy Returns: At the end of his life, the Scorpion King leads an army to take over and subjugate the world, aided by Anubis, which proves that the Egyptian gods are, you know, gods.
-The Scorpion King: Mathayus is ostensibly the last living Akkadian, and leads a revolt against an evil king who....wants to take over and subjugate the world. Some tragic irony there, knowing where he ends up.
-The Scorpion King II: Rise of a Warrior: There's a whole kingdom of Akkadians, and Mathayus leads a revolt against the general who killed both his father and the rightful King, usurping the throne. Given that just a decade or two later the entire race has been wiped out, maybe putting the rightful heir back on the throne didn't end well?
Which brings us to this movie, featuring numerous human characters with the names of the Egyptian pantheon (maybe named in homage to their gods, but it feels like the idea is that these men will be mistaken for God's by myth and legend) and doubles down on the "conquest is evil" theme. Mathayus has lost his queen and kingdom from the first film to plague, reduced to being a mercenary again. The action primarily happens in Egypt and.... Cambodia? Vietnam? Thailand? Somewhere around there, with little explanation of how the characters go that distance. This just makes the whole thing more inconsistent and convoluted. I shudder to think about the damage the next one will do....
-The Mummy Returns: At the end of his life, the Scorpion King leads an army to take over and subjugate the world, aided by Anubis, which proves that the Egyptian gods are, you know, gods.
-The Scorpion King: Mathayus is ostensibly the last living Akkadian, and leads a revolt against an evil king who....wants to take over and subjugate the world. Some tragic irony there, knowing where he ends up.
-The Scorpion King II: Rise of a Warrior: There's a whole kingdom of Akkadians, and Mathayus leads a revolt against the general who killed both his father and the rightful King, usurping the throne. Given that just a decade or two later the entire race has been wiped out, maybe putting the rightful heir back on the throne didn't end well?
Which brings us to this movie, featuring numerous human characters with the names of the Egyptian pantheon (maybe named in homage to their gods, but it feels like the idea is that these men will be mistaken for God's by myth and legend) and doubles down on the "conquest is evil" theme. Mathayus has lost his queen and kingdom from the first film to plague, reduced to being a mercenary again. The action primarily happens in Egypt and.... Cambodia? Vietnam? Thailand? Somewhere around there, with little explanation of how the characters go that distance. This just makes the whole thing more inconsistent and convoluted. I shudder to think about the damage the next one will do....
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Ghosts of War (2020) in Movies
Nov 9, 2020
The ending is worth it
Ghosts of War follows a group of American soldiers as they make their way to take up post at a French chateau towards the end of the Second World War, and encounter much more than they bargained for in this slightly above average B movie.
Right from the start, this opens with your usual cliched group of soldiers that you’d find in any war film. Brenton Thwaites is Chris, the boss and leader, you have Skylar Astin as Eugene, the brains/intellectual, Kyle Gallner as the odd and trouble sniper Tappert, Alan Ritchson as a typical macho man and finally Theo Rossi as the filler. So far, so generic, and other than Tappert who gets a decent bit of creepy character development later on, the rest of the main group are virtually one dimensional. Which is a shame as the cast are a decent group of actors that have been let down by the poor writing. Although I did enjoy Billy Zane popping up with a intentionally cheesy blink and you’ll miss it cameo as a Nazi with horrific German accent.
The film begins like your typical war movie; a group of soldiers working their way across country to reach their destination. It’s nothing we haven’t seen before. However what helps lift this is a rather moving and poignant opening quote, and a score that accompanies this very well. The score in this would be at home on any dramatic war film, and almost seems out of place in a horror film. It gives this a feeling that it’s a lot more epic and grand than it actually turns out to be.
What really drags this film down is when the group arrive at the aforementioned chateau and begin to experience all of the supernatural going’s on. Aside from a a couple of potentially creepy scenes, the jump scares are tired and predictable and the ghosts look like every other spook that’s been in a modern day horror film recently. It reeks of a below average, typical ghost film with some hit and miss special effects (albeit with an respectable amount of blood and gore) and had it continued on like this, it would’ve been completely forgettable. However throughout the scenes in the chateau there are hints that there is something deeper and more sinister going on, and it starts to pick up again when the group encounter a party of Nazi soldiers trying to enter the building. Things start to get a little weird and confusing and then a big reveal in the last 20 minutes completely shifts this film into something you never expected. I didn’t see this particular twist coming and for me, this made this movie more than just a sub par horror film. The reveal has been met with mixed reviews from critics and reviews alike, but I think it injects some much needed enjoyment and intrigue – it’s just a shame we have to wait over an hour to get there. The entire twist and ending is rather disturbing and also quite moving and emotional, and the final scene, whilst one we’ve seen done many times before, did make this a satisfying and darkly entertaining end.
Ghosts of War starts off as a below average clichéd war horror film, however it you can get through the first hour, the ending packs a decent, enjoyable and rather surprising punch. It’s just a shame the first two acts don’t match up to the ending.
Right from the start, this opens with your usual cliched group of soldiers that you’d find in any war film. Brenton Thwaites is Chris, the boss and leader, you have Skylar Astin as Eugene, the brains/intellectual, Kyle Gallner as the odd and trouble sniper Tappert, Alan Ritchson as a typical macho man and finally Theo Rossi as the filler. So far, so generic, and other than Tappert who gets a decent bit of creepy character development later on, the rest of the main group are virtually one dimensional. Which is a shame as the cast are a decent group of actors that have been let down by the poor writing. Although I did enjoy Billy Zane popping up with a intentionally cheesy blink and you’ll miss it cameo as a Nazi with horrific German accent.
The film begins like your typical war movie; a group of soldiers working their way across country to reach their destination. It’s nothing we haven’t seen before. However what helps lift this is a rather moving and poignant opening quote, and a score that accompanies this very well. The score in this would be at home on any dramatic war film, and almost seems out of place in a horror film. It gives this a feeling that it’s a lot more epic and grand than it actually turns out to be.
What really drags this film down is when the group arrive at the aforementioned chateau and begin to experience all of the supernatural going’s on. Aside from a a couple of potentially creepy scenes, the jump scares are tired and predictable and the ghosts look like every other spook that’s been in a modern day horror film recently. It reeks of a below average, typical ghost film with some hit and miss special effects (albeit with an respectable amount of blood and gore) and had it continued on like this, it would’ve been completely forgettable. However throughout the scenes in the chateau there are hints that there is something deeper and more sinister going on, and it starts to pick up again when the group encounter a party of Nazi soldiers trying to enter the building. Things start to get a little weird and confusing and then a big reveal in the last 20 minutes completely shifts this film into something you never expected. I didn’t see this particular twist coming and for me, this made this movie more than just a sub par horror film. The reveal has been met with mixed reviews from critics and reviews alike, but I think it injects some much needed enjoyment and intrigue – it’s just a shame we have to wait over an hour to get there. The entire twist and ending is rather disturbing and also quite moving and emotional, and the final scene, whilst one we’ve seen done many times before, did make this a satisfying and darkly entertaining end.
Ghosts of War starts off as a below average clichéd war horror film, however it you can get through the first hour, the ending packs a decent, enjoyable and rather surprising punch. It’s just a shame the first two acts don’t match up to the ending.
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Titanic (1997) in Movies
Feb 5, 2021
Shame about the romance
Film #13 on the 100 Movies Bucket List: Titanic
Titanic is a rather divisive film. There are many that absolutely love it, the creators of this list among them I don’t doubt. And then there are those that can’t stand it, despite it’s 11 Oscar wins. When it was first released, Titanic’s popularity was immense and it was all the rage at my high school. At that time I loved it like everyone else, but over the years I’ve grown to notice its flaws as well.
Titanic is another epic from the mind of James Cameron and unsurprisingly tells the real life story behind the sinking of the Titanic in 1912. As the true story wasn’t enough, the sinking is shown from the point of view of a love story between Rose Dewitt Bukater (Kate Winslet) and Jack Dawson (Leonardo DiCaprio). In 1996, treasure hunter Brock Lovett (Bill Paxton) and his team are searching the wreckage of the Titanic for a rare diamond and instead come across a preserved drawing of Rose, who meets with Brock and tells the story of her experiences onboard. These experiences involve a class divide, a fiancé with anger management issues (Billy Zane) and some nice (Kathy Bates) and not very nice (Frances Fisher) female aristocrats.
While I can understand why Cameron has intertwined a romance into this real life tragedy, for me it’s this story that lessens the impact of such a horrific tale and makes this into not quite the masterpiece he wanted it to be. There are the obvious plot holes and irrational actions – the hugely memorable water door scene that could blatantly fit more than one person, and the motives for keeping a invaluable diamond hidden for 80+ years only to throw it away in the ocean – are just two of the laughably bad scenes in this. Paired with a sometimes dodgy script (there’s a scene where Rose says “Jack” over half a dozen times in less than a minute) and some cheesy exposition and narration from the older Rose, do not make for an endearing story.
However if you can ignore the romance and poor fictional story, the rest of Titanic is an impressive bit of filmmaking. From the opening shots featuring real life footage of the actual wreckage of the Titanic to the effects used to bring the ship to life, they are truly stunning. You can really appreciate the love and care that has gone in to making this film, and the cinematography is faultless. Water is not an easy element to film yet James Cameron has mastered it with ease and including shots of the real wreckage only adds to the emotions that this evokes, especially as there are a lot of facts interlaced within the romance – the band continuing to play despite impending death is particularly moving. The cast too are strong despite the sometimes questionable material they have to work with. This is undoubtedly the film that made both Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet megastars in their own rights, although for me I much preferred the more low key performances from the likes of Kathy Bates, Bernard Hill (as Captain Smith) and Victor Garber (as ship builder Thomas Andrews).
Titanic is not perfect. It is a drawn out and overly long romance set aboard a disaster movie and it can’t justify being longer than 3 hours. However despite it’s flaws, it is still a masterpiece in filmmaking and truly an epic film.
Titanic is a rather divisive film. There are many that absolutely love it, the creators of this list among them I don’t doubt. And then there are those that can’t stand it, despite it’s 11 Oscar wins. When it was first released, Titanic’s popularity was immense and it was all the rage at my high school. At that time I loved it like everyone else, but over the years I’ve grown to notice its flaws as well.
Titanic is another epic from the mind of James Cameron and unsurprisingly tells the real life story behind the sinking of the Titanic in 1912. As the true story wasn’t enough, the sinking is shown from the point of view of a love story between Rose Dewitt Bukater (Kate Winslet) and Jack Dawson (Leonardo DiCaprio). In 1996, treasure hunter Brock Lovett (Bill Paxton) and his team are searching the wreckage of the Titanic for a rare diamond and instead come across a preserved drawing of Rose, who meets with Brock and tells the story of her experiences onboard. These experiences involve a class divide, a fiancé with anger management issues (Billy Zane) and some nice (Kathy Bates) and not very nice (Frances Fisher) female aristocrats.
While I can understand why Cameron has intertwined a romance into this real life tragedy, for me it’s this story that lessens the impact of such a horrific tale and makes this into not quite the masterpiece he wanted it to be. There are the obvious plot holes and irrational actions – the hugely memorable water door scene that could blatantly fit more than one person, and the motives for keeping a invaluable diamond hidden for 80+ years only to throw it away in the ocean – are just two of the laughably bad scenes in this. Paired with a sometimes dodgy script (there’s a scene where Rose says “Jack” over half a dozen times in less than a minute) and some cheesy exposition and narration from the older Rose, do not make for an endearing story.
However if you can ignore the romance and poor fictional story, the rest of Titanic is an impressive bit of filmmaking. From the opening shots featuring real life footage of the actual wreckage of the Titanic to the effects used to bring the ship to life, they are truly stunning. You can really appreciate the love and care that has gone in to making this film, and the cinematography is faultless. Water is not an easy element to film yet James Cameron has mastered it with ease and including shots of the real wreckage only adds to the emotions that this evokes, especially as there are a lot of facts interlaced within the romance – the band continuing to play despite impending death is particularly moving. The cast too are strong despite the sometimes questionable material they have to work with. This is undoubtedly the film that made both Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet megastars in their own rights, although for me I much preferred the more low key performances from the likes of Kathy Bates, Bernard Hill (as Captain Smith) and Victor Garber (as ship builder Thomas Andrews).
Titanic is not perfect. It is a drawn out and overly long romance set aboard a disaster movie and it can’t justify being longer than 3 hours. However despite it’s flaws, it is still a masterpiece in filmmaking and truly an epic film.
