Search
Search results
MichaelS (0 KP) rated Thor: Ragnarok (2017) in Movies
Feb 20, 2018
Thor has always been the red headed stepchild of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. He's there, but nobody really seems to care all that much. His presence in the Avengers films is always more in the background, and his solo movies have been mediocre at best. Nothing that warrants more than one viewing. Now, with a healthy dose of Flash Gordon flair, Thor finally gets a movie that elevates this particular branch of the MCU to good, popcorn fun.
Visually, the movie is splendid. Bright colors and sweeping visuals create great backgrounds and settings. The hand to hand fights are impactful, and a aerial chase scene is exciting, and well shot. The music smacks of 70's science fiction, and 80's action movies, giving it a very retro feel. And the director is obviously a big fan of Led Zeppelin's "Immigrant Song". It's used in 2 fight scenes, which seems redundant, as Kiss' "God Of Thunder", or AC/DC's "Thunderstruck" would've been welcome additions.
But the film suffers from the same shortcomings as most other Marvel movies. First, the over reliance on humor continues to be crutch for the entire MCU. Way too often, the plot stops dead in it's track to tell a joke, and humor is injected into serious situations, completely erasing any feeling of something actually being at stake. After all, if the characters are cracking jokes, what they're fighting for must not be that important.
Once again, Marvel shits the bed when it comes to having a threatening villain. As Hela, Cate Blanchett is a step up from the useless villains Marvel usually produces, but even so, we're never really sure what exactly she's after. And when Thor devises a plan to stop her, it seemed to me that plan was simply doing Hela was out to accomplish in the first place. Other than that, she talks slow, walks, slow, and flicks her wrists a lot for various reasons.
The biggest problem with this movie is indicative of the entire MCU at this point. These movies simply can not stand on their own. They're so dependent on the viewer having seen all the other Marvel movies, that you'll be lost on many plot points if you go into this movie cold. Cameos by characters from other Marvel movies serve no point, other than to remind you that this movie is a part of a "cinematic universe"...two words, and a concept, I'd be glad to never deal with again.
Chris Hemsworth is solid as Thor, but he's always been rather unremarkable in the role. He does have a good chemistry with Mark Ruffalo's Bruce Banner/Hulk, but it's never really explained how Hulk was suddenly able to be such a chatterbox. Tessa Thompson is a welcome addition as Valkyrie. She has more layers to her character than any other in the movie, and looks great in tight leather. Tom Hiddleston is back...again...as Loki. It's never a good thing when the villain of your movie is more popular than the hero, and this movie completes Loki's transformation into full blown good guy. So, there's that.
All that being said, the movie is undeniable fun. It's has a very retro, Flash Gordon feel to it. Right down to a synthesized musical score that is a mixture of 70's science fiction, and 80's action movies. The action consists mostly of hand to hand fights, and for the most part, they're done very well. The final "three fights at once" scenario is reminiscent of movies like Return Of The Jedi, where the effects of all separate fights merge into one.
It's a fun, popcorn movie, and a major step up from the first two Thor movies. It's nothing great, or even memorable. But there's enough here to warrant additional viewings, and that's a first for this branch of the Marvel franchise.
Visually, the movie is splendid. Bright colors and sweeping visuals create great backgrounds and settings. The hand to hand fights are impactful, and a aerial chase scene is exciting, and well shot. The music smacks of 70's science fiction, and 80's action movies, giving it a very retro feel. And the director is obviously a big fan of Led Zeppelin's "Immigrant Song". It's used in 2 fight scenes, which seems redundant, as Kiss' "God Of Thunder", or AC/DC's "Thunderstruck" would've been welcome additions.
But the film suffers from the same shortcomings as most other Marvel movies. First, the over reliance on humor continues to be crutch for the entire MCU. Way too often, the plot stops dead in it's track to tell a joke, and humor is injected into serious situations, completely erasing any feeling of something actually being at stake. After all, if the characters are cracking jokes, what they're fighting for must not be that important.
Once again, Marvel shits the bed when it comes to having a threatening villain. As Hela, Cate Blanchett is a step up from the useless villains Marvel usually produces, but even so, we're never really sure what exactly she's after. And when Thor devises a plan to stop her, it seemed to me that plan was simply doing Hela was out to accomplish in the first place. Other than that, she talks slow, walks, slow, and flicks her wrists a lot for various reasons.
The biggest problem with this movie is indicative of the entire MCU at this point. These movies simply can not stand on their own. They're so dependent on the viewer having seen all the other Marvel movies, that you'll be lost on many plot points if you go into this movie cold. Cameos by characters from other Marvel movies serve no point, other than to remind you that this movie is a part of a "cinematic universe"...two words, and a concept, I'd be glad to never deal with again.
Chris Hemsworth is solid as Thor, but he's always been rather unremarkable in the role. He does have a good chemistry with Mark Ruffalo's Bruce Banner/Hulk, but it's never really explained how Hulk was suddenly able to be such a chatterbox. Tessa Thompson is a welcome addition as Valkyrie. She has more layers to her character than any other in the movie, and looks great in tight leather. Tom Hiddleston is back...again...as Loki. It's never a good thing when the villain of your movie is more popular than the hero, and this movie completes Loki's transformation into full blown good guy. So, there's that.
All that being said, the movie is undeniable fun. It's has a very retro, Flash Gordon feel to it. Right down to a synthesized musical score that is a mixture of 70's science fiction, and 80's action movies. The action consists mostly of hand to hand fights, and for the most part, they're done very well. The final "three fights at once" scenario is reminiscent of movies like Return Of The Jedi, where the effects of all separate fights merge into one.
It's a fun, popcorn movie, and a major step up from the first two Thor movies. It's nothing great, or even memorable. But there's enough here to warrant additional viewings, and that's a first for this branch of the Marvel franchise.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
When I first heard that Warner Bros. was planning a series of films based on the classic DC Comics characters akin to what Marvel has successfully done, I was intrigued with the possibilities. With the release of Batman Vs Superman: Dawn of Justice, we get the first look into that universe and I have to say it is one that has more than a few stumbles.
The film follows Superman (Henry Cavill), as he deals with a plot that is set to discredit him and make the people of the world fearful of him and his abilities.
One person affected by this is Bruce Wayne (Ben Affleck), who has seen firsthand the devastation that Superman is capable of after seeing the city practically destroyed in the events that culminated in “Superman: Man of Steel”.
Wayne has devised a plan for his alter-ego Batman to put a stop to Superman before he can become an even greater threat to the public and despite the urgings of his butler Alfred (Jeremy Irons), Batman continues with his plan.
As if this was not enough for Superman to contend with, neurotic tech giant Lex Luthor (Jesse Eisenberg), has decided to manipulate events into a larger and even more dangerous game as he has set his sights clearly on Superman but would also love to see Batman removed in the process.
One would think that with a premise such as this it would be a non-stop action fest that would thrill fans from start to finish. Sadly this is not the case. The first hour and change of the film plods along with little action and we get a cast, some of whom I believe are badly miscast, plodding along and blandly brooding. The characters are so unlikeable that I found myself not caring for them or their fates and was shocked how a film with so much potential and a reported $250 million budget could be so under-whelming.
The final part of the film is non-stop action but Director Zack Snyder allows his film to become awash in all the Hollywood action film stereotypes. I thought I was watching an over-the-top special effects reel as all of the action unfolded, it was very hard to get overly thrilled about it despite the skill that went into crafting it.
Affleck does a passable job in the role and hopefully as he has more outings he will grow on me, but I just never really embraced him in the part. His Batman acts out of character in many sequences as he jumps to an extreme conclusion without taking the steps in between. Eisenberg is so neurotic and annoying that you just want to slap him. He is so difficult to watch. The biggest issue I have is with Cavill. He is just so bland and uninteresting to me as Superman. Yes, I know it is unfair to compare him to Christopher Reeves, but even Brandon Routh did a more acceptable portrayal of Superman. He just is not very interesting to watch in the role, with his monotone delivery and lack of facial expressions. I want heroes that I can get behind and care about, not one-dimensional characters that do little to generate my interest and sympathy.
The most telling thing for me was for an audience that was so keyed up at the start of the film, they were pretty silent for most of it, save for when a certain character appeared and even at the end of the film, offered only a small round of applause.
The film did try to be epic in scale and it is clear that this is just the opening round of a much larger series, but for now, I could not help but feel disappointed with the result and I would be shocked if the next offerings from Marvel are not considerably better than this film.
http://sknr.net/2016/03/23/81808/
The film follows Superman (Henry Cavill), as he deals with a plot that is set to discredit him and make the people of the world fearful of him and his abilities.
One person affected by this is Bruce Wayne (Ben Affleck), who has seen firsthand the devastation that Superman is capable of after seeing the city practically destroyed in the events that culminated in “Superman: Man of Steel”.
Wayne has devised a plan for his alter-ego Batman to put a stop to Superman before he can become an even greater threat to the public and despite the urgings of his butler Alfred (Jeremy Irons), Batman continues with his plan.
As if this was not enough for Superman to contend with, neurotic tech giant Lex Luthor (Jesse Eisenberg), has decided to manipulate events into a larger and even more dangerous game as he has set his sights clearly on Superman but would also love to see Batman removed in the process.
One would think that with a premise such as this it would be a non-stop action fest that would thrill fans from start to finish. Sadly this is not the case. The first hour and change of the film plods along with little action and we get a cast, some of whom I believe are badly miscast, plodding along and blandly brooding. The characters are so unlikeable that I found myself not caring for them or their fates and was shocked how a film with so much potential and a reported $250 million budget could be so under-whelming.
The final part of the film is non-stop action but Director Zack Snyder allows his film to become awash in all the Hollywood action film stereotypes. I thought I was watching an over-the-top special effects reel as all of the action unfolded, it was very hard to get overly thrilled about it despite the skill that went into crafting it.
Affleck does a passable job in the role and hopefully as he has more outings he will grow on me, but I just never really embraced him in the part. His Batman acts out of character in many sequences as he jumps to an extreme conclusion without taking the steps in between. Eisenberg is so neurotic and annoying that you just want to slap him. He is so difficult to watch. The biggest issue I have is with Cavill. He is just so bland and uninteresting to me as Superman. Yes, I know it is unfair to compare him to Christopher Reeves, but even Brandon Routh did a more acceptable portrayal of Superman. He just is not very interesting to watch in the role, with his monotone delivery and lack of facial expressions. I want heroes that I can get behind and care about, not one-dimensional characters that do little to generate my interest and sympathy.
The most telling thing for me was for an audience that was so keyed up at the start of the film, they were pretty silent for most of it, save for when a certain character appeared and even at the end of the film, offered only a small round of applause.
The film did try to be epic in scale and it is clear that this is just the opening round of a much larger series, but for now, I could not help but feel disappointed with the result and I would be shocked if the next offerings from Marvel are not considerably better than this film.
http://sknr.net/2016/03/23/81808/
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Jurassic World (2015) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
After several years of starts and stops as Universal attempted to find the right script to relaunch their Dinosaur franchise, “Jurassic World” has arrived.
The film picks up years after the events of the first film and does not reference the events of the 2nd or third film in the series as the focus is on the fact that the park has now become a fully functioning and popular resort destination.
Monorails, rides, petting zoos, hotels, restaurants, and of course, gift shops now dominate the island and keep the revenue going. The resort is under the watchful eye of Claire (Bruce Dallas Howard), who is an ultra-organized workaholic who reportedly brought an itinerary on a first date.
Claire is always finding a way to keep the cash flowing as the park has a very high overhead and as such, is always looking at new ways to attract fans as new attractions bring in more money.
Claire is in the midst of pitching their latest idea to investors, a genetically modified and created Dinosaur dubbed the “Indominous Rex” when her two nephews arrive.
The boys are taking a break from the cold climate of home as well as the fact that their parents are splitting up and see the trip as a way for their parents to get them out of the way by dumping them on their indifferent Aunt who assigns an assistant to watch them.
Naturally things do not go as planned as the new Dinosaur decides to bust up the fun and escapes from its enclosure and wreaks havoc on the humans and dinosaurs in the park.
Ex-Navy Raptor wrangler Owen (Chris Pratt) is requested to evaluate the situation and he sees the Indominous as a creature that kills for fun and is more intelligent than her creators thought, and with thousands of guests lining the park, this could be a disaster in the making. Not wanting to hurt their corporate image and investment, Claire and a scheming company exec named Hoskins (Vincent D’Onfrio); devise a series of plans to stop their new creation which only tend to exacerbate the situation.
With few options left, Owen and his pack muster their resources to locate and stop the most dangerous creature ever created before it can do even more damage to the guests and park.
The film is a spectacle of 3D CGI and there are plenty of great visuals and action sequences that underscore just how fat CGI technology has come since the first film. The creatures are simply amazing to see and the action is more intense and violent then some people may be expecting.
Director Colin Trevorrow directing only his second film and his first with any real budget has made sure the film never stops trying to wow the audience with plenty of sharp visuals and action and aside from a few pacing issues now and then, the film moves along well. The film does suffer at times from a fairly linear story and actors who at times are pretty much along for the ride and to be props for their CGI co-stars but Pratt and Howard do solid work as does Irrfan Khan and D’Onfrio.
The film uses elements of a script that was discarded when Universal was planning a new film, but it has been woven into the story in an intriguing way that does setup the next film in the series well and does offer up some very intriguing possibilities for future chapters.
For now, “Jurassic World” is a welcome return to the franchise, one that for me is the first true sequel to the original as I enjoyed it more than the two films that followed.
http://sknr.net/2015/06/12/jurassic-world/
The film picks up years after the events of the first film and does not reference the events of the 2nd or third film in the series as the focus is on the fact that the park has now become a fully functioning and popular resort destination.
Monorails, rides, petting zoos, hotels, restaurants, and of course, gift shops now dominate the island and keep the revenue going. The resort is under the watchful eye of Claire (Bruce Dallas Howard), who is an ultra-organized workaholic who reportedly brought an itinerary on a first date.
Claire is always finding a way to keep the cash flowing as the park has a very high overhead and as such, is always looking at new ways to attract fans as new attractions bring in more money.
Claire is in the midst of pitching their latest idea to investors, a genetically modified and created Dinosaur dubbed the “Indominous Rex” when her two nephews arrive.
The boys are taking a break from the cold climate of home as well as the fact that their parents are splitting up and see the trip as a way for their parents to get them out of the way by dumping them on their indifferent Aunt who assigns an assistant to watch them.
Naturally things do not go as planned as the new Dinosaur decides to bust up the fun and escapes from its enclosure and wreaks havoc on the humans and dinosaurs in the park.
Ex-Navy Raptor wrangler Owen (Chris Pratt) is requested to evaluate the situation and he sees the Indominous as a creature that kills for fun and is more intelligent than her creators thought, and with thousands of guests lining the park, this could be a disaster in the making. Not wanting to hurt their corporate image and investment, Claire and a scheming company exec named Hoskins (Vincent D’Onfrio); devise a series of plans to stop their new creation which only tend to exacerbate the situation.
With few options left, Owen and his pack muster their resources to locate and stop the most dangerous creature ever created before it can do even more damage to the guests and park.
The film is a spectacle of 3D CGI and there are plenty of great visuals and action sequences that underscore just how fat CGI technology has come since the first film. The creatures are simply amazing to see and the action is more intense and violent then some people may be expecting.
Director Colin Trevorrow directing only his second film and his first with any real budget has made sure the film never stops trying to wow the audience with plenty of sharp visuals and action and aside from a few pacing issues now and then, the film moves along well. The film does suffer at times from a fairly linear story and actors who at times are pretty much along for the ride and to be props for their CGI co-stars but Pratt and Howard do solid work as does Irrfan Khan and D’Onfrio.
The film uses elements of a script that was discarded when Universal was planning a new film, but it has been woven into the story in an intriguing way that does setup the next film in the series well and does offer up some very intriguing possibilities for future chapters.
For now, “Jurassic World” is a welcome return to the franchise, one that for me is the first true sequel to the original as I enjoyed it more than the two films that followed.
http://sknr.net/2015/06/12/jurassic-world/
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Black Dynamite (2009) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
After his brother is killed, Black Dynamite decides to take matters into his own hands. Just who is Black Dynamite? He's an action legend, a one-man army, and anyone who gets on his bad side is going to wind up dead. Other than struggling with trying to figure out who's responsible for his brother's death, Black Dynamite also has other matters to attend to. There's that new smack being distributed on the street that's even somehow reaching the orphans at the local orphanage and there's something screwy about that Anaconda malt liquor that just doesn't sit well with him. Black Dynamite will do whatever it takes to find out who killed his brother and clean up the streets even if it means going all the way to the Honky House.
Black Dynamite has quite a reputation as just about every article or review that mentioned the film gave it high praise. Is it possible for a film to be incredible while paying homage to the films that inspired it? Sure it is. Directors like Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez make a living doing just that. With Black Dynamite, however, you may not know what to expect. Expect it to parody the blaxploitation films from the 70s, pay homage to classic kung fu films, have ridiculous dialogue, a storyline that hilariously doesn't make sense, and have a funky soundtrack with lyrics that are just as awesome as the rest of the film.
Michael Jai White is really the selling point of the film since he is Black Dynamite and you're with him the entire film. I hadn't seen much of White's work before this, but I'm definitely wanting to see more now. His fight scenes are top notch and from what I could tell, it looked like he did the majority of his own stunts. The word I've been hearing is that he's a fairly impressive actor overall, but has just never really picked the right roles and never really broke into the mainstream. Maybe after playing Gambol in The Dark Knight helped him out a bit because he definitely has a bright future as not only an action star, but an actor as well. Other than his superb martial arts work, White's comedic timing is also really important in a film like this and it really pays off. There's a scene where a boom mic is noticeably in the shot while Black Dynamite is giving a big speech. He draws attention to it by repeatedly glaring at the mic throughout the scene, but doesn't miss a beat of the dialogue. Ridiculous scenes like that were crucial in the overall enjoyment factor of the film.
The dialogue is laugh out loud funny at times. There's a scene where the CIA show up at Black Dynamite's house and Agent O'Leary says to Black Dynamite, "We heard about your brother's death and we don't want you running around turning the streets into rivers of blood." Black Dynamite responds with, "Then tell me who did it and I'll just leave a puddle." The storyline is just as absurd, as well. Other than the film missing scenes that were shown in the trailer and things not fully being resolved with Vincent "The Don" Rafelli, the scene where Black Dynamite and his crew figure out what Anaconda malt liquor's true purpose is is both hilariously long-winded and confusing.
Black Dynamite may not be for everyone, but it will be hilariously awesome for most who actually get to see it. The film somehow manages to blend comedy as absurd and ridiculous as films like Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy or Zoolander and have hard hitting action scenes that are noticeably a tribute to classic Bruce Lee films. This blaxploitation parody comes highly recommended, can you dig it?
Black Dynamite has quite a reputation as just about every article or review that mentioned the film gave it high praise. Is it possible for a film to be incredible while paying homage to the films that inspired it? Sure it is. Directors like Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez make a living doing just that. With Black Dynamite, however, you may not know what to expect. Expect it to parody the blaxploitation films from the 70s, pay homage to classic kung fu films, have ridiculous dialogue, a storyline that hilariously doesn't make sense, and have a funky soundtrack with lyrics that are just as awesome as the rest of the film.
Michael Jai White is really the selling point of the film since he is Black Dynamite and you're with him the entire film. I hadn't seen much of White's work before this, but I'm definitely wanting to see more now. His fight scenes are top notch and from what I could tell, it looked like he did the majority of his own stunts. The word I've been hearing is that he's a fairly impressive actor overall, but has just never really picked the right roles and never really broke into the mainstream. Maybe after playing Gambol in The Dark Knight helped him out a bit because he definitely has a bright future as not only an action star, but an actor as well. Other than his superb martial arts work, White's comedic timing is also really important in a film like this and it really pays off. There's a scene where a boom mic is noticeably in the shot while Black Dynamite is giving a big speech. He draws attention to it by repeatedly glaring at the mic throughout the scene, but doesn't miss a beat of the dialogue. Ridiculous scenes like that were crucial in the overall enjoyment factor of the film.
The dialogue is laugh out loud funny at times. There's a scene where the CIA show up at Black Dynamite's house and Agent O'Leary says to Black Dynamite, "We heard about your brother's death and we don't want you running around turning the streets into rivers of blood." Black Dynamite responds with, "Then tell me who did it and I'll just leave a puddle." The storyline is just as absurd, as well. Other than the film missing scenes that were shown in the trailer and things not fully being resolved with Vincent "The Don" Rafelli, the scene where Black Dynamite and his crew figure out what Anaconda malt liquor's true purpose is is both hilariously long-winded and confusing.
Black Dynamite may not be for everyone, but it will be hilariously awesome for most who actually get to see it. The film somehow manages to blend comedy as absurd and ridiculous as films like Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy or Zoolander and have hard hitting action scenes that are noticeably a tribute to classic Bruce Lee films. This blaxploitation parody comes highly recommended, can you dig it?
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Robin Hood (2018) in Movies
Jan 28, 2019 (Updated Jan 28, 2019)
A Middling Reboot
This is another movie from late 2018 that I am only just getting a chance to see. After my girlfriend and I sat through this one, she turned to me and asked what I thought of it. In response, I just shrugged my shoulders and went, "It was alright." That is genuinely the best way that I can think of to sum up my feeling on this film.
It's a mediocre action movie based around the basic concept of the old tale of Robin Hood. It is extremely cheesy and has bags of whatever the opposite of subtle is. It tries to tell a gritty, 'Year One,' type of story for the character and treats the Robin Hood moniker as a dual identity for Robin Loxley, which draws heavy comparisons to the Batman/Bruce Wayne dynamic. Unfortunately, not much of it lands due to the lack of risk-taking involved.
The movie also feels weirdly dated, especially considering that it's only a few months old. There are an abundance of overindulgent slow motion shots in the style of 300; a movie that was 12 years old at the time of this movie's release. The use of green-screen in this film is actually pretty atrocious judging by today's standards and actually might be some of the worst out of any 2018 movie I saw. This is noticeable throughout the whole movie, but is especially rough-looking during a carriage chase that happens around two thirds into the film.
The cast are all phoning it in as well. Taron Egerton does nothing special with the lead role and Ben Mendlesohn hams it up as the Sheriff Of Nottingham, doing pretty much the same villainous shlock that he did in Ready Player One and Star Wars: Rogue One, way to not get typecast Mendo!
That's the other weird thing about this movie, is that it's not sure what era it wants to be set in. Some of the accents, language and costumes are suitable for the period that the movie is set in, but other elements and other lines and costumes etc feel like they are from 2018, the year that this movie was made. The end result that they were aiming for may have been a sort of rolling timeline that transcends the days of the Crusades that the movie is set in but what we get is just a scattered mess.
There were a few positives in this thing. Some cool shots, Some of the stunt archery is, (while super unrealistic,) pretty cool to watch. I know that 'Real Life Legolas,' Lars Andersen was hired to teach the cast some archery and I believe he helped out with the action choreography as well, which is pretty cool. There are also some glimpses of creativity in some of the shots. One in particular that stood out to me was a shot that gradually panned out from behind a solitary soldiers shield to show the intensity and scale of the battle that was taking place. It's just unfortunate that in so many other places in the movie, all we get is lazy, generic camera angles that add nothing to the scene taking place.
Overall, this is an okay action romp. Don't go in expecting anything of substance or you will most definitely come away disappointed. Though, if all that you are looking for is something to stick on in the background while you do other things or if you are just after an easy, straightforward action adventure popcorn flick, then you could probably do worse than this.
It's a mediocre action movie based around the basic concept of the old tale of Robin Hood. It is extremely cheesy and has bags of whatever the opposite of subtle is. It tries to tell a gritty, 'Year One,' type of story for the character and treats the Robin Hood moniker as a dual identity for Robin Loxley, which draws heavy comparisons to the Batman/Bruce Wayne dynamic. Unfortunately, not much of it lands due to the lack of risk-taking involved.
The movie also feels weirdly dated, especially considering that it's only a few months old. There are an abundance of overindulgent slow motion shots in the style of 300; a movie that was 12 years old at the time of this movie's release. The use of green-screen in this film is actually pretty atrocious judging by today's standards and actually might be some of the worst out of any 2018 movie I saw. This is noticeable throughout the whole movie, but is especially rough-looking during a carriage chase that happens around two thirds into the film.
The cast are all phoning it in as well. Taron Egerton does nothing special with the lead role and Ben Mendlesohn hams it up as the Sheriff Of Nottingham, doing pretty much the same villainous shlock that he did in Ready Player One and Star Wars: Rogue One, way to not get typecast Mendo!
That's the other weird thing about this movie, is that it's not sure what era it wants to be set in. Some of the accents, language and costumes are suitable for the period that the movie is set in, but other elements and other lines and costumes etc feel like they are from 2018, the year that this movie was made. The end result that they were aiming for may have been a sort of rolling timeline that transcends the days of the Crusades that the movie is set in but what we get is just a scattered mess.
There were a few positives in this thing. Some cool shots, Some of the stunt archery is, (while super unrealistic,) pretty cool to watch. I know that 'Real Life Legolas,' Lars Andersen was hired to teach the cast some archery and I believe he helped out with the action choreography as well, which is pretty cool. There are also some glimpses of creativity in some of the shots. One in particular that stood out to me was a shot that gradually panned out from behind a solitary soldiers shield to show the intensity and scale of the battle that was taking place. It's just unfortunate that in so many other places in the movie, all we get is lazy, generic camera angles that add nothing to the scene taking place.
Overall, this is an okay action romp. Don't go in expecting anything of substance or you will most definitely come away disappointed. Though, if all that you are looking for is something to stick on in the background while you do other things or if you are just after an easy, straightforward action adventure popcorn flick, then you could probably do worse than this.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Hostage (2005) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Chief of Police Jeff Talley (Bruce Willis) is a man filled with turmoil. A former S.W.A.T. officer and top hostage negotiator for the Los Angeles Police Department, Talley now toils away in a quite California town where crime is light and very infrequent. The change in locales was made necessary for Jeff in the aftermath of a hostage negotiation where things did not go accordingly leaving Jeff with more questions than answers.
As if this is not bad enough, Talley is having difficulties with his wife Jane (Serena Scott Thomas), and his daughter Amanda (Rumer Willis), who is not happy with their relocation to the quiet locale or the strain that is amongst her parents as it is clear that they still love each other very much.
The quiet town is disrupted when a robbery of a successful locale business man goes horribly wrong and ends up with a dead police officer and three hostages being held in a high tech, high security home.
Jeff responds to the incident and soon finds himself dealing with the three young men who are clearly in over their head and very dangerous due to the instability of the situation. Jeff decides to call in the Sheriff’s office as he believe his police force is not suited for this sort of situation and essentially decides to wash his hands of the situation and go home.
While driving home, Jeff is carjacked by a group of individuals who show Jeff that they have taken his wife and daughter hostage and instruct him not to let anyone in or out of the house where the hostage crisis is taking place. Jeff is also instructed to not deviate in any way from his instructions under pain of immediate death for his wife and daughter. His only communication with his new handlers will be via a cell phone, and he is to resume control of the negotiations.
It is learned that there is something in the house that the people holding Jeff’s family need and are willing to resort to very extreme measure to get it.
It is at this point that the very, very gripping and entertaining setup to the film begins to slide, as the second half of the film does not come close to matching the quality of the opening segments.
There are some very good cat and mouse moments as the men in the house start to argue amongst themselves, and interact with the family inside the house. The supporting performances are solid especially those of Jennifer (Michelle Horn), who plays the daughter held captive by the trio and the eerie performance of Ben Foster as the twisted Hostage taker Mars.
Sadly the film decides to turn to a series of brutal images and sequences rather than continue to develop the characters and work the story. The characters often embark on some inane courses of action and do things that not only contradict what we know about their characters but also fly into the lapse of logic as people in their situations would never do. I would love to expand on this by referencing a segment of the film but in the interest of not spoiling the film, I will explain it as when characters are told not to do something, why would they repeatedly do it, and then continue to do so without any consequences?
It is the continued lack of common sense and the and the very over the top and lazy finale to the film that sinks what could have and should have been a much better movie as the film is clearly sunk by the awful final 40 minutes of the show. Willis does a solid job with his role but the last act of the script let him down as even a star of his magnitude and talents cant make up for the films numerous shortcomings.
As if this is not bad enough, Talley is having difficulties with his wife Jane (Serena Scott Thomas), and his daughter Amanda (Rumer Willis), who is not happy with their relocation to the quiet locale or the strain that is amongst her parents as it is clear that they still love each other very much.
The quiet town is disrupted when a robbery of a successful locale business man goes horribly wrong and ends up with a dead police officer and three hostages being held in a high tech, high security home.
Jeff responds to the incident and soon finds himself dealing with the three young men who are clearly in over their head and very dangerous due to the instability of the situation. Jeff decides to call in the Sheriff’s office as he believe his police force is not suited for this sort of situation and essentially decides to wash his hands of the situation and go home.
While driving home, Jeff is carjacked by a group of individuals who show Jeff that they have taken his wife and daughter hostage and instruct him not to let anyone in or out of the house where the hostage crisis is taking place. Jeff is also instructed to not deviate in any way from his instructions under pain of immediate death for his wife and daughter. His only communication with his new handlers will be via a cell phone, and he is to resume control of the negotiations.
It is learned that there is something in the house that the people holding Jeff’s family need and are willing to resort to very extreme measure to get it.
It is at this point that the very, very gripping and entertaining setup to the film begins to slide, as the second half of the film does not come close to matching the quality of the opening segments.
There are some very good cat and mouse moments as the men in the house start to argue amongst themselves, and interact with the family inside the house. The supporting performances are solid especially those of Jennifer (Michelle Horn), who plays the daughter held captive by the trio and the eerie performance of Ben Foster as the twisted Hostage taker Mars.
Sadly the film decides to turn to a series of brutal images and sequences rather than continue to develop the characters and work the story. The characters often embark on some inane courses of action and do things that not only contradict what we know about their characters but also fly into the lapse of logic as people in their situations would never do. I would love to expand on this by referencing a segment of the film but in the interest of not spoiling the film, I will explain it as when characters are told not to do something, why would they repeatedly do it, and then continue to do so without any consequences?
It is the continued lack of common sense and the and the very over the top and lazy finale to the film that sinks what could have and should have been a much better movie as the film is clearly sunk by the awful final 40 minutes of the show. Willis does a solid job with his role but the last act of the script let him down as even a star of his magnitude and talents cant make up for the films numerous shortcomings.
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (2019) in Movies
Jul 27, 2019 (Updated Jul 27, 2019)
Overhyped and disappointed
Contains spoilers, click to show
This review will contain spoilers.... and this is my opinon.
Once upon a time in hollywood is Quentin Tarantino’s ninth film and has a large ensemble cast.
This to me didnt seem like a quentin tarantino film, i mean it had some elements that he does but overall it didnt seem like a tarantino film, it was missing all of elements pervious used in his other films. There are only three storylines in this film. Rick's storyline, Cliff's storyline and Sharon's storyline and thats it. When in reservoir dogs, pulp fiction, jackie brown and four roons their were more than three storylines. Its also missing all the blood and gore like in his other films. Yes that sence at the end, and one of Rick's movies he has a flamflower but thats it. When as the other films that tarantino did had alot of blood and gore and violence and swearing. This movie seemed like it had none of that.
I was very disappointed because iam a huge quentin tarantino fan, i think he is one of the best directors of all time and like his other movies. So i was very excited for this movie and turns out i was very disappointed.
It didnt seem like it was a 2h and 40min movie.
Also lets talk about charles manson and his family throwed into this movie. I thought the movie was going to be about Rick and Cliff invisagating the murder of sharon taron and invisagating the manson family. Their are only three sences that have to do with the manson family.
1. The scene were charles introduces himself to polanski home.
2. When cliff goes to Spahn ranch run by the manson family and thier meanching charlies and cliff should meet him. This sence right here is the best part of the movie. Its myserious, dramatic, you dont know if the family is going to murder cliff or not. So your questioning if thats going to happen. But unfourtaly this sence is only like 5-15 mins long and at no point charles comes. You think something is going to happen than boom sence ends.
3. The end, were some of the manson family are about to kill tate and her friends and then thier try to kill rick and cliff because cliff was mad at them for being hillbillys and being on privite property. Which was like a unexpected turn but why??? Cliff fights them off and kills two of them and then rick kills one with a flameflower.
Thats it, three sences with the manson family and one with charles what a let down.
This whole movie was a let down,
Dakota Fanning, Bruce Dern, Luke Perry , Damian Lewis, Timothy Olyphant and micheal madsen all had one sence and these are big movie stars. To waste all of this talent is sad. Basically most of the supporting cast was wasted and only had one sence.
Also the ending, after rick and cliff fight off some of the manson family, cliff is being taking off to the hostipal and rick finally meets sharon tate then the movie's title comes on and then boom movie off. I thought that cant be it, that wasnt 2h and 40mins. It didnt feel like it, but it was. I thought why are the credits showing. Their should be more, but no the credits are showing.
Once upon a time in hollywood, is alternate timeline movie about the late 1960's in hollywood. But why have the manson family in it when your not going to use them that much. Why develop this alternate storyline, when their is a real life story and your using the real life people in the movie. Stupid it.
I can go on and on how this movie was very disappointed but i think i did this movie its justice.
Overall, once upon a time in hollywood is a very dissappointed movie.
:(
Once upon a time in hollywood is Quentin Tarantino’s ninth film and has a large ensemble cast.
This to me didnt seem like a quentin tarantino film, i mean it had some elements that he does but overall it didnt seem like a tarantino film, it was missing all of elements pervious used in his other films. There are only three storylines in this film. Rick's storyline, Cliff's storyline and Sharon's storyline and thats it. When in reservoir dogs, pulp fiction, jackie brown and four roons their were more than three storylines. Its also missing all the blood and gore like in his other films. Yes that sence at the end, and one of Rick's movies he has a flamflower but thats it. When as the other films that tarantino did had alot of blood and gore and violence and swearing. This movie seemed like it had none of that.
I was very disappointed because iam a huge quentin tarantino fan, i think he is one of the best directors of all time and like his other movies. So i was very excited for this movie and turns out i was very disappointed.
It didnt seem like it was a 2h and 40min movie.
Also lets talk about charles manson and his family throwed into this movie. I thought the movie was going to be about Rick and Cliff invisagating the murder of sharon taron and invisagating the manson family. Their are only three sences that have to do with the manson family.
1. The scene were charles introduces himself to polanski home.
2. When cliff goes to Spahn ranch run by the manson family and thier meanching charlies and cliff should meet him. This sence right here is the best part of the movie. Its myserious, dramatic, you dont know if the family is going to murder cliff or not. So your questioning if thats going to happen. But unfourtaly this sence is only like 5-15 mins long and at no point charles comes. You think something is going to happen than boom sence ends.
3. The end, were some of the manson family are about to kill tate and her friends and then thier try to kill rick and cliff because cliff was mad at them for being hillbillys and being on privite property. Which was like a unexpected turn but why??? Cliff fights them off and kills two of them and then rick kills one with a flameflower.
Thats it, three sences with the manson family and one with charles what a let down.
This whole movie was a let down,
Dakota Fanning, Bruce Dern, Luke Perry , Damian Lewis, Timothy Olyphant and micheal madsen all had one sence and these are big movie stars. To waste all of this talent is sad. Basically most of the supporting cast was wasted and only had one sence.
Also the ending, after rick and cliff fight off some of the manson family, cliff is being taking off to the hostipal and rick finally meets sharon tate then the movie's title comes on and then boom movie off. I thought that cant be it, that wasnt 2h and 40mins. It didnt feel like it, but it was. I thought why are the credits showing. Their should be more, but no the credits are showing.
Once upon a time in hollywood, is alternate timeline movie about the late 1960's in hollywood. But why have the manson family in it when your not going to use them that much. Why develop this alternate storyline, when their is a real life story and your using the real life people in the movie. Stupid it.
I can go on and on how this movie was very disappointed but i think i did this movie its justice.
Overall, once upon a time in hollywood is a very dissappointed movie.
:(
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Endless (2020) in Movies
Oct 19, 2020
Alexandra Shipp's acting is OK (1 more)
The British Columbian scenary
A Ghost "Ditto" - but without the star quality
Riley (Alexandra Shipp) and Chris (Nicholas Hamilton) are teenage lovers about to be torn apart... but not in the way you think. Riley is about to turn her back on her talent for comic book art to follow her parent's wishes: to study law on the other side of the country in Georgetown. Chris is from the other side of the tracks - aren't they always in these films? - living in a one-parent family with his mother Lee (Bond-girl Famke Janssen).
But fate is about to push them even further apart as - with an advert as to why drinking, texting and driving don't mix - Chris is killed in a car crash. Tragedy - when the feeling's gone and you can't go on! Can their love for each other reach beyond death itself, and if so, at what cost?
We've been here before of course with the Demi Moore / Patrick Swayze hit "Ghost" from 1990. That was an Oscar winner (Best Supporting Actress for Whoopi Goldberg and screenplay by Bruce Joel Rubin). Will "Endless" - a teen-love version - match this potential? Unfortunately, without a potter's wheel in sight, it doesn't stand a ghost of a chance.
It feels like it's not for the want of trying from the five youngsters* at the heart of the action, with Eddie Ramos and Zoë Belkin playing the lover's best friends and DeRon Horton being the limbo-trapped ghost-guide equivalent to the subway dropout from "Ghost". (* I say "youngsters", but most seem to be in their late twenties!) )
All seem to invest their energy into the project. Unfortunately, with the exception of Alexandra Shipp, the energy is not matched with great acting talent. Poor Nicholas Hamilton (the bully from "It") seems to have a particularly limited range, with his resting expression being "gormless".
None of the adult actors fair much better, with Famke Janssen being particularly unconvincing.
As I said, the exception here is Alexandra Shipp, who had a supporting role in "Love, Simon" and a more centre-stage role as "Storm" in the otherwise disappointing "X-Men: Dark Phoenix". Here she remains eminently watchable, but is hog-bound by a seriously dodgy script.
If you read my bob-the-movie-man blog regularly, you will know I reach for my flame-thrower at the appearance of voiceovers. And the start of this movie made me shudder with fear as a "tell, not show" approach was followed. It's a mild blessing that the script - by Andre Case and O'Neil Sharma - used this device purely as a slightly lazy way to set the scene and the voiceover didn't rear its ugly head again.
However, on a broader basis, the screenplay doesn't excite - predictability is its middle name - and it contains lines of dialogue that are absolute stinkers. There are whole sections of the movie that defy belief, with a police investigation in particular appearing completely incompetent. The result is that it adds neither drama or tension.
Through my career in IT I've had the great fortune to travel to a number of small cities in Canada, and all have appealed with their consistently picturesque qualities and consistently quirky individuals! Here we have the cities of Kelowna and Vernon in British Columbia playing California, and the drone cinematography (by Frank Borin and Mark Dobrescu) displays the dramatic lake-filled scenery to the full.
With so many cookie-cutter movies out there, it feels like the non-horror "Ghost" recipe (or "Heaven Can Wait" / "It's a Wonderful Life" / "A Matter of Life and Death" / delete per your preference) is well overdue for a makeover. Unfortunately, director Scott Speer's attempt just isn't good enough to fill the void. And that's a shame.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the bob-the-movie-man review here - https://rb.gy/mzq6jx . Thanks.)
But fate is about to push them even further apart as - with an advert as to why drinking, texting and driving don't mix - Chris is killed in a car crash. Tragedy - when the feeling's gone and you can't go on! Can their love for each other reach beyond death itself, and if so, at what cost?
We've been here before of course with the Demi Moore / Patrick Swayze hit "Ghost" from 1990. That was an Oscar winner (Best Supporting Actress for Whoopi Goldberg and screenplay by Bruce Joel Rubin). Will "Endless" - a teen-love version - match this potential? Unfortunately, without a potter's wheel in sight, it doesn't stand a ghost of a chance.
It feels like it's not for the want of trying from the five youngsters* at the heart of the action, with Eddie Ramos and Zoë Belkin playing the lover's best friends and DeRon Horton being the limbo-trapped ghost-guide equivalent to the subway dropout from "Ghost". (* I say "youngsters", but most seem to be in their late twenties!) )
All seem to invest their energy into the project. Unfortunately, with the exception of Alexandra Shipp, the energy is not matched with great acting talent. Poor Nicholas Hamilton (the bully from "It") seems to have a particularly limited range, with his resting expression being "gormless".
None of the adult actors fair much better, with Famke Janssen being particularly unconvincing.
As I said, the exception here is Alexandra Shipp, who had a supporting role in "Love, Simon" and a more centre-stage role as "Storm" in the otherwise disappointing "X-Men: Dark Phoenix". Here she remains eminently watchable, but is hog-bound by a seriously dodgy script.
If you read my bob-the-movie-man blog regularly, you will know I reach for my flame-thrower at the appearance of voiceovers. And the start of this movie made me shudder with fear as a "tell, not show" approach was followed. It's a mild blessing that the script - by Andre Case and O'Neil Sharma - used this device purely as a slightly lazy way to set the scene and the voiceover didn't rear its ugly head again.
However, on a broader basis, the screenplay doesn't excite - predictability is its middle name - and it contains lines of dialogue that are absolute stinkers. There are whole sections of the movie that defy belief, with a police investigation in particular appearing completely incompetent. The result is that it adds neither drama or tension.
Through my career in IT I've had the great fortune to travel to a number of small cities in Canada, and all have appealed with their consistently picturesque qualities and consistently quirky individuals! Here we have the cities of Kelowna and Vernon in British Columbia playing California, and the drone cinematography (by Frank Borin and Mark Dobrescu) displays the dramatic lake-filled scenery to the full.
With so many cookie-cutter movies out there, it feels like the non-horror "Ghost" recipe (or "Heaven Can Wait" / "It's a Wonderful Life" / "A Matter of Life and Death" / delete per your preference) is well overdue for a makeover. Unfortunately, director Scott Speer's attempt just isn't good enough to fill the void. And that's a shame.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the bob-the-movie-man review here - https://rb.gy/mzq6jx . Thanks.)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Shallows (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
The Deathly Shallows, part 1
Every shark movie is inevitably compared (unfavourably) against Spielberg’s classic 1975 tourist-muncher. And “The Shallows” is no exception. But while not a 5-Fad classic, this flick comes pretty close by being hugely enjoyable and having a lot going for it.
Waxing lyrically. The shapely Blake Liveley.
Waxing lyrically. The shapely Blake Liveley.
Blake Lively (“The Age of Adeline“) plays surfer and trainee doctor Nancy, still grieving the recent death from cancer of her mother and travelling to a remote Mexican surf beach where she has photos of her mother surfing while pregnant with her. While surfing alone, Nancy is attacked a couple of hundred yards from the shore by a Great White and severely injured. She has the choice of refuge of either a low rock or another less palatable floating object. Choosing the rock (at low tide) she is faced with the dilemma of both surviving her injuries and then being rescued before the high tide takes the rock and leaves her to the mercy of the ever circling big-fish.
We're going to need a bigger rock.
We’re going to need a bigger rock.
A big summer blockbuster this is not, with a total cast of eleven (not including a guest appearance of Steven Seagull (as himself)). But the small cast doesn’t make it less gripping, and gripping it most certainly is, with tension building progressively (emphasised periodically by an on-screen clock) with the countdown to high tide.
Blake Lively is an underrated actress and really delivers the goods here. And bearing in mind the problems that Spielberg had with his mechanical shark Bruce (named after Spielberg’s lawyer) the appearance of the shark is limited to where actually needed, with Lively having to fill in the blanks with reaction shots. As your imagination is still far better than any special effects, this is hugely effective for certain sequences.
Pure horror: here Dad had gone down to the video rental and come back with 'Dirty Grandpa'.
Pure horror: her Dad had gone down to the video rental and come back with ‘Dirty Grandpa’.
The film draws similarities to another interesting entry in the “Jaws” genre – “Open Water 2: Adrift” from 2006. In that film there was the same incessant threat of shark attack combined with the audience frustration that safety (in that case, the deck of their yacht, if only they had let a ladder down) being so near. Here the 200 yards to the shore is shoutable to but still 190 yards too far.
The cinematography (by Flavio Martínez Labiano) is also just beautifully done with some stunning surf and underwater shots that not only highlight Ms Lively’s lithely (sic) figure and her Californian surfing skills, but also the beauty of the ‘Mexican coast’ (actually Lord Howe Island in New South Wales, Australia).
“The Shallows” was written by Anthony Jaswinski and directed by Jaume Collet-Serra (the director of “Non-Stop“, aka Taken 3.5). It comes with a truly impressive BvS quotient of just 5.9%!
So with all of this going for it, you would think that my rating is heading towards at least a 4.5. But all films like this require a satisfying denouement, and unfortunately this is where this one comes off the rails. It is just plain silly and, together with an unnecessary and irritating epilogue scene, diminishes what was on track to be one of the best films of the summer. So here’s the “One Mann’s Movies” solution:
Using Final Cut X, Adobe Premier or your favourite video editing suite, cut out the scene from 115:00 to 116:00 from “Jaws”;
Photoshop Blake Lively’s face onto Roy Scheider’s body.
Insert the finished clip into “The Shallows” at about 82 minutes in.
Enjoy a 5-Fad classic!
This limitation aside, it’s still worth your while hunting it out at a cinema near you, since the fantastic cinematography is best suited to a big screen.
Waxing lyrically. The shapely Blake Liveley.
Waxing lyrically. The shapely Blake Liveley.
Blake Lively (“The Age of Adeline“) plays surfer and trainee doctor Nancy, still grieving the recent death from cancer of her mother and travelling to a remote Mexican surf beach where she has photos of her mother surfing while pregnant with her. While surfing alone, Nancy is attacked a couple of hundred yards from the shore by a Great White and severely injured. She has the choice of refuge of either a low rock or another less palatable floating object. Choosing the rock (at low tide) she is faced with the dilemma of both surviving her injuries and then being rescued before the high tide takes the rock and leaves her to the mercy of the ever circling big-fish.
We're going to need a bigger rock.
We’re going to need a bigger rock.
A big summer blockbuster this is not, with a total cast of eleven (not including a guest appearance of Steven Seagull (as himself)). But the small cast doesn’t make it less gripping, and gripping it most certainly is, with tension building progressively (emphasised periodically by an on-screen clock) with the countdown to high tide.
Blake Lively is an underrated actress and really delivers the goods here. And bearing in mind the problems that Spielberg had with his mechanical shark Bruce (named after Spielberg’s lawyer) the appearance of the shark is limited to where actually needed, with Lively having to fill in the blanks with reaction shots. As your imagination is still far better than any special effects, this is hugely effective for certain sequences.
Pure horror: here Dad had gone down to the video rental and come back with 'Dirty Grandpa'.
Pure horror: her Dad had gone down to the video rental and come back with ‘Dirty Grandpa’.
The film draws similarities to another interesting entry in the “Jaws” genre – “Open Water 2: Adrift” from 2006. In that film there was the same incessant threat of shark attack combined with the audience frustration that safety (in that case, the deck of their yacht, if only they had let a ladder down) being so near. Here the 200 yards to the shore is shoutable to but still 190 yards too far.
The cinematography (by Flavio Martínez Labiano) is also just beautifully done with some stunning surf and underwater shots that not only highlight Ms Lively’s lithely (sic) figure and her Californian surfing skills, but also the beauty of the ‘Mexican coast’ (actually Lord Howe Island in New South Wales, Australia).
“The Shallows” was written by Anthony Jaswinski and directed by Jaume Collet-Serra (the director of “Non-Stop“, aka Taken 3.5). It comes with a truly impressive BvS quotient of just 5.9%!
So with all of this going for it, you would think that my rating is heading towards at least a 4.5. But all films like this require a satisfying denouement, and unfortunately this is where this one comes off the rails. It is just plain silly and, together with an unnecessary and irritating epilogue scene, diminishes what was on track to be one of the best films of the summer. So here’s the “One Mann’s Movies” solution:
Using Final Cut X, Adobe Premier or your favourite video editing suite, cut out the scene from 115:00 to 116:00 from “Jaws”;
Photoshop Blake Lively’s face onto Roy Scheider’s body.
Insert the finished clip into “The Shallows” at about 82 minutes in.
Enjoy a 5-Fad classic!
This limitation aside, it’s still worth your while hunting it out at a cinema near you, since the fantastic cinematography is best suited to a big screen.
Mothergamer (1514 KP) rated The Green Hornet (2011) in Movies
Apr 3, 2019
I don't even have the words for how infuriated I am right now with The Green Hornet film. There's a small part of me that wishes I could just throw a brick at Seth Rogen's crotch right now, because he absolutely deserves it along with director Michael Gondry. That's right, the director of the film Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind which to me was a good movie is responsible for this equally terrible movie.
I do feel much of the blame lies with the fact that Seth Rogen co-wrote this screenplay and he claimed that he was so glad he didn't screw up one of his favorite childhood heroes. Seth, Seth, Seth....tsk tsk, someone's a dirty rotten liar Seth. Why must you constantly lie to us Seth? The truth is you messed up completely! In the original radio show, comics, and T.V. Show Britt Reid wasn't a moron. He was a smart successful newspaper publisher, he was confident, and he could fight well alongside his equally confident sidekick Kato. I loved the T.V. show and I loved the comic. I loved watching The Green Hornet on Kung Fu Saturday when I was a kid. That was the highlight of my Saturday. I would watch a couple of episodes of The Green Hornet and then watch the featured kung fu film. That's a sacred childhood memory and you, Seth Rogen along with your director have pissed all over it.
Not only did you make Britt Reid a total jerk, you made him stupid too! He loosely based Britt Reid on Paris Hilton? Are you kidding me with this nonsense?
Seth Rogen's Britt Reid is a spoiled rich brat who shows no interest in running the newspaper, but he instead becomes buddies with Kato his mechanic and coffee maker. I felt bad for Jay Chou because he's no Bruce Lee, but he did alright in spite of Seth Rogen constantly hyperventilating and shouting in every scene. He tried, he really did. Cameron Diaz's role as Reid's secretary Lenore Case is completely useless. She's basically camera filler with a great smile.
Of course, The Green Hornet has to have a villain and that is Christoph Waltz (Oscar winner from Inglorious Basterds) as Chudnofsky, but there is no depth to the character which proves bad writing is bad writing. Now I like action scenes as much as the next person, but it's as if Seth Rogen got bored and just added as much action as possible as filler rather than having an actual plot that tells the story. There's also so much pointless dialogue, watching this train wreck of a film is like being stuck in a dentist's chair having a root canal with no anesthesia. Yes, it's that damn bad. Not even the overpriced 3-D could save this film. That is just a gimmick to get more money out of people and this film proved that point real quick.
There is so much that could have been done to make this film version of the T.V. show great, but none of it was done. Instead, we get a film that is so terrible with no plot at all, a fake Britt Reid (I don't care what you say Rogen, that character you played was NOT Britt Reid! You are a liar sir!), a subdued Kato that got overshadowed by the crazy rich brat, a useless vapid secretary, and a villain that's about as threatening as a labradoodle. Seth Rogen and Michale Gondry you should be ashamed and embarrassed that your names are on this piece of trash.
Don't waste your money on this folks and certainly don't waste it on 3-D. The original is better and I'm sure that Mr. Rogen's going to have several bricks thrown at his crotch for even writing this awful screenplay. Just please, do us a favor and go sit in the corner with M. Night Shyamalan and quit making movies, because you really screwed the pooch on this one pal.
I do feel much of the blame lies with the fact that Seth Rogen co-wrote this screenplay and he claimed that he was so glad he didn't screw up one of his favorite childhood heroes. Seth, Seth, Seth....tsk tsk, someone's a dirty rotten liar Seth. Why must you constantly lie to us Seth? The truth is you messed up completely! In the original radio show, comics, and T.V. Show Britt Reid wasn't a moron. He was a smart successful newspaper publisher, he was confident, and he could fight well alongside his equally confident sidekick Kato. I loved the T.V. show and I loved the comic. I loved watching The Green Hornet on Kung Fu Saturday when I was a kid. That was the highlight of my Saturday. I would watch a couple of episodes of The Green Hornet and then watch the featured kung fu film. That's a sacred childhood memory and you, Seth Rogen along with your director have pissed all over it.
Not only did you make Britt Reid a total jerk, you made him stupid too! He loosely based Britt Reid on Paris Hilton? Are you kidding me with this nonsense?
Seth Rogen's Britt Reid is a spoiled rich brat who shows no interest in running the newspaper, but he instead becomes buddies with Kato his mechanic and coffee maker. I felt bad for Jay Chou because he's no Bruce Lee, but he did alright in spite of Seth Rogen constantly hyperventilating and shouting in every scene. He tried, he really did. Cameron Diaz's role as Reid's secretary Lenore Case is completely useless. She's basically camera filler with a great smile.
Of course, The Green Hornet has to have a villain and that is Christoph Waltz (Oscar winner from Inglorious Basterds) as Chudnofsky, but there is no depth to the character which proves bad writing is bad writing. Now I like action scenes as much as the next person, but it's as if Seth Rogen got bored and just added as much action as possible as filler rather than having an actual plot that tells the story. There's also so much pointless dialogue, watching this train wreck of a film is like being stuck in a dentist's chair having a root canal with no anesthesia. Yes, it's that damn bad. Not even the overpriced 3-D could save this film. That is just a gimmick to get more money out of people and this film proved that point real quick.
There is so much that could have been done to make this film version of the T.V. show great, but none of it was done. Instead, we get a film that is so terrible with no plot at all, a fake Britt Reid (I don't care what you say Rogen, that character you played was NOT Britt Reid! You are a liar sir!), a subdued Kato that got overshadowed by the crazy rich brat, a useless vapid secretary, and a villain that's about as threatening as a labradoodle. Seth Rogen and Michale Gondry you should be ashamed and embarrassed that your names are on this piece of trash.
Don't waste your money on this folks and certainly don't waste it on 3-D. The original is better and I'm sure that Mr. Rogen's going to have several bricks thrown at his crotch for even writing this awful screenplay. Just please, do us a favor and go sit in the corner with M. Night Shyamalan and quit making movies, because you really screwed the pooch on this one pal.