Search
Search results
Paul Tyrrell (139 KP) rated Bloodshot (2020) in Movies
Apr 18, 2020
Bloodshit is closer to the truth
Ok so CGI poor, Vin Diesel looks bored and Guy Pearce dialing in another bad guy performance (Iron Man 3). What happened to Guy Pearce? Memento, L A Confidential etc he was great. Now just seems either lame or lazy.
Anyway, Booldshit, sorry, Bloodshot is not great. So so story, and fight scenes are okish but overall not worth your time.
Except Eiza Gonzalez who is stunningly gorgeous and worth the watch just for her.
Otherwise, avoid like COVID 19!
Anyway, Booldshit, sorry, Bloodshot is not great. So so story, and fight scenes are okish but overall not worth your time.
Except Eiza Gonzalez who is stunningly gorgeous and worth the watch just for her.
Otherwise, avoid like COVID 19!
ShakingNotStirred (19 KP) rated The Suicide Squad (2021) in Movies
Aug 6, 2021
A Strikingly Thrilling, Insane Ride of a Story
James Gunn does a wonderful job of capturing the charm from his "Guardian of the Galaxy" movies and gives the squad it's own feel (something the original dreadfully failed to do) and tells a story that feels true to the medium. Great job. Casting is spot on and well balanced amongst team members. Kudos to whomever kept the WB executives away from this one preventing them from screwing it up. Go see in the Theater!!!
Ducklady (1174 KP) rated Prometheus (2012) in Movies
Sep 2, 2019
I have seen so many bad reviews for this movie, but personally I didn't think it was so bad. The main characters were wooden but I enjoyed the acting from Charlize Theron, Idris Elba and Michael Fassbender. The old person suit/makeup/CGI on the aged Weyland was proper weird and didn't look good at all. It does seem this movie doesn't really know what it is trying to say about the weird black goo either. But the introduction of The Engineers was interesting addition to the world of Alien.
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Lake Placid 2 (2007) in Movies
Mar 22, 2022
Here me out, Lake Placid 2 is definitely a big shit pile - awful, terrible dialogue, some of the absolutey worst CGI I've ever seen, actors who change accents suddenly, and an all round lazy re-hash of the first film, but somehow, it's still relatively entertaining. It doesn't take itself too seriously. It's the very definition of ironically bad. It's what Sharknado wishes it was.
They also replaced Oliver Platts character with the boss that smacks Chandlers ass a whole bunch in Friends which is low key hilarious.
So, so, shit. But kind of great.
They also replaced Oliver Platts character with the boss that smacks Chandlers ass a whole bunch in Friends which is low key hilarious.
So, so, shit. But kind of great.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Tomorrowland (2015) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
A CGI disaster
Disney has an intriguing track record when it comes to movies. The multi-billion dollar company has produced some incredible films and some absolute stinkers, with its live-action department bearing the brunt of this misfortune.
Here, The Incredibles director Brad Bird is hoping to add another great film to his CV with Tomorrowland: A World Beyond, but does this George Clooney fantasy adventure tick all the right boxes?
Tomorrowland is based on Disney’s adventure ride of the same name and like The Pirates of the Caribbean franchise, requires a completely original story to ensure it translates well onto the big screen.
George Clooney, Hugh Laurie and Britt Robertson star in a film that is visually stunning but horrifically uneven with a story that doesn’t make much sense. Its vague environmental message is one of the only things to take away from it.
Clooney stars as Frank Walker, a disgruntled inventor who transports Robertson’s Casey Newton to a place in time and space known only as Tomorrowland. Once there, they must change the past in order to secure their future.
Bird’s direction is as usual, supremely confident with stunning CGI landscapes of the metropolis being beautifully juxtaposed with the Earth we know and love. There are scenes here that look like something from an art installation.
Clooney is as dynamic as ever in between all the special effects and Robertson channels Jennifer Lawrence in her role as the plucky teenager, but Tomorrowland showcases Hugh Laurie the best. His David Nix is an intriguing character who is sorely underused with the CGI being the main focus here.
Unfortunately, as countless blockbusters have proved time and time again, brilliant special effects don’t equal a brilliant film and Tomorrowland falls head first into that trap. Yes, the other dimension is on the whole, breath-taking but there’s such a lack of detail anywhere else that it feels decidedly hollow.
This isn’t to say that we have a film like Transformers: Age of Extinction on our hands but it doesn’t reach the heights of Saving Mr Banks or even the Narnia films.
Being stuck in the middle isn’t the best place to be for a movie with a rumoured production cost of $200m and it’s this lack of identity that may hold Tomorrowland back when it comes to box-office performance.
There’s also some debate over the target audience. With a 12A rating, you’d expect a similar tone to The Hunger Games or even The Amazing Spider-Man 2, but what the audience gets is a PG movie with a couple of scenes of violence, pushing it over into the coveted ‘teen market’.
Overall, Tomorrowland is a fun if entirely forgetful fantasy adventure brimming with CGI and unfortunately not much else. Hugh Laurie is an eccentric and painfully underused presence and that pretty much sums up the entire production.
Everything feels a little underdone, like there was something else under the surface waiting to break free that just didn’t come to fruition.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/05/24/a-cgi-disaster-tomorrowland-review/
Here, The Incredibles director Brad Bird is hoping to add another great film to his CV with Tomorrowland: A World Beyond, but does this George Clooney fantasy adventure tick all the right boxes?
Tomorrowland is based on Disney’s adventure ride of the same name and like The Pirates of the Caribbean franchise, requires a completely original story to ensure it translates well onto the big screen.
George Clooney, Hugh Laurie and Britt Robertson star in a film that is visually stunning but horrifically uneven with a story that doesn’t make much sense. Its vague environmental message is one of the only things to take away from it.
Clooney stars as Frank Walker, a disgruntled inventor who transports Robertson’s Casey Newton to a place in time and space known only as Tomorrowland. Once there, they must change the past in order to secure their future.
Bird’s direction is as usual, supremely confident with stunning CGI landscapes of the metropolis being beautifully juxtaposed with the Earth we know and love. There are scenes here that look like something from an art installation.
Clooney is as dynamic as ever in between all the special effects and Robertson channels Jennifer Lawrence in her role as the plucky teenager, but Tomorrowland showcases Hugh Laurie the best. His David Nix is an intriguing character who is sorely underused with the CGI being the main focus here.
Unfortunately, as countless blockbusters have proved time and time again, brilliant special effects don’t equal a brilliant film and Tomorrowland falls head first into that trap. Yes, the other dimension is on the whole, breath-taking but there’s such a lack of detail anywhere else that it feels decidedly hollow.
This isn’t to say that we have a film like Transformers: Age of Extinction on our hands but it doesn’t reach the heights of Saving Mr Banks or even the Narnia films.
Being stuck in the middle isn’t the best place to be for a movie with a rumoured production cost of $200m and it’s this lack of identity that may hold Tomorrowland back when it comes to box-office performance.
There’s also some debate over the target audience. With a 12A rating, you’d expect a similar tone to The Hunger Games or even The Amazing Spider-Man 2, but what the audience gets is a PG movie with a couple of scenes of violence, pushing it over into the coveted ‘teen market’.
Overall, Tomorrowland is a fun if entirely forgetful fantasy adventure brimming with CGI and unfortunately not much else. Hugh Laurie is an eccentric and painfully underused presence and that pretty much sums up the entire production.
Everything feels a little underdone, like there was something else under the surface waiting to break free that just didn’t come to fruition.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/05/24/a-cgi-disaster-tomorrowland-review/
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Justice League (2017) in Movies
Oct 11, 2019
Oof
I had a horrible horrible feeling that Justice League was going to be rubbish. After the double whammy of raw sewage that was BvS and Suicide Squad, my hopes for a third ensemble film weren't high at all.
The finished result was worse than I thought it was going to be be though...
Firstly, we will start with the characters - a collection of some of the finest heroes the world of comics has to offer.
Batman, who I thought was the best part about BvS, is relegated to a boring and tired waste, who acts as occasional comic relief. It doesn't help that at this point, Ben Affleck seems completely uninterested in even being involved (can't blame the guy).
After a pretty good solo outing, Wonder Woman has gone from an empowered female badass, to someone who mopes around about her ex boyfriend (but is still admittedly badass).
The Flash (one of my favourite DC characters) is LITERALLY useless from start to finish.
Cyborg has the remnants of a potential interesting back story, but the rushed nature of the whole affair gives us next to nothing there.
Aquaman isn't too bad, but is there, like Batman, for light comic relief whilst he shouts generic gym-bro nonsense everywhere.
Superman, when he turns up, is ok. Just not really given much to do - it's all just a big mess.
The villain of the piece is Steppenwolf, a bland, forgettable and generic CGI demon who has little-to-no impact as he shouts his way through the bare bones narrative.
Talking of the CGI, it's just not that great, again. I'm not sure how this keeps happening with the amount of money being pumped into these things?
The third act of the film is draped in CGI, and it all looks cheap! And I just can't get my head around it! Ahhhhh!
(I'm not even going to talk about Henry Cavill's now infamous and hideous CGI mouth)
When it comes to the DCEU, the better films have been the solo outings, and it really shows here - the three characters who had not yet appeared properly at this point (Cyborg, Aquaman, and The Flash) just seem hugely wasted in a movie that is obviously trying to play catch up with the MCU - something that's not necessary! DC has a wealth of great source material to draw from, and it's yet to be utilised properly!
It would seem that going forward, Warner Bros are concentrating more on these solo films, and judging by the putrid mess of Justice League, that's is definitely the right direction to go in.
The finished result was worse than I thought it was going to be be though...
Firstly, we will start with the characters - a collection of some of the finest heroes the world of comics has to offer.
Batman, who I thought was the best part about BvS, is relegated to a boring and tired waste, who acts as occasional comic relief. It doesn't help that at this point, Ben Affleck seems completely uninterested in even being involved (can't blame the guy).
After a pretty good solo outing, Wonder Woman has gone from an empowered female badass, to someone who mopes around about her ex boyfriend (but is still admittedly badass).
The Flash (one of my favourite DC characters) is LITERALLY useless from start to finish.
Cyborg has the remnants of a potential interesting back story, but the rushed nature of the whole affair gives us next to nothing there.
Aquaman isn't too bad, but is there, like Batman, for light comic relief whilst he shouts generic gym-bro nonsense everywhere.
Superman, when he turns up, is ok. Just not really given much to do - it's all just a big mess.
The villain of the piece is Steppenwolf, a bland, forgettable and generic CGI demon who has little-to-no impact as he shouts his way through the bare bones narrative.
Talking of the CGI, it's just not that great, again. I'm not sure how this keeps happening with the amount of money being pumped into these things?
The third act of the film is draped in CGI, and it all looks cheap! And I just can't get my head around it! Ahhhhh!
(I'm not even going to talk about Henry Cavill's now infamous and hideous CGI mouth)
When it comes to the DCEU, the better films have been the solo outings, and it really shows here - the three characters who had not yet appeared properly at this point (Cyborg, Aquaman, and The Flash) just seem hugely wasted in a movie that is obviously trying to play catch up with the MCU - something that's not necessary! DC has a wealth of great source material to draw from, and it's yet to be utilised properly!
It would seem that going forward, Warner Bros are concentrating more on these solo films, and judging by the putrid mess of Justice League, that's is definitely the right direction to go in.
Andy K (10821 KP) rated The Legend of Tarzan (2016) in Movies
Mar 30, 2019
Better than I thought it would be
On the recommendation from a friend I bought this movie used for like 3 bucks and it was worth every penny! ?
This isn't really an origin story of Tarzan, more of him coming back to where he was raised to attempt to save the day. His origins are revealed in flashback which helps the audience understand his motivations and reservations for returning to his homeland.
When the bankrupt king summons an evil henchman to help him cleanse the land of its inhabitants for the raw diamond lot, our heroes are summoned to stop them.
Alexander Skarsgård, Margot Robbie and Samuel L. Jackson were all really good and believable. For some reason I normally love Christoph Waltz, but I think he's played the villain too many times now and this time it felt a little generic to me.
CGI for the most part was acceptable, although any CGI gorillas will always be compared to the recent Apes reboot trilogy which is still far superior.
The action scenes were decent if you can accept humans battling giant gorillas an kept me entertained throughout.
You will certainly not be disappointed with this one in my opinion.
This isn't really an origin story of Tarzan, more of him coming back to where he was raised to attempt to save the day. His origins are revealed in flashback which helps the audience understand his motivations and reservations for returning to his homeland.
When the bankrupt king summons an evil henchman to help him cleanse the land of its inhabitants for the raw diamond lot, our heroes are summoned to stop them.
Alexander Skarsgård, Margot Robbie and Samuel L. Jackson were all really good and believable. For some reason I normally love Christoph Waltz, but I think he's played the villain too many times now and this time it felt a little generic to me.
CGI for the most part was acceptable, although any CGI gorillas will always be compared to the recent Apes reboot trilogy which is still far superior.
The action scenes were decent if you can accept humans battling giant gorillas an kept me entertained throughout.
You will certainly not be disappointed with this one in my opinion.
LoganCrews (2861 KP) rated Ninja Assassin (2009) in Movies
Sep 21, 2020
Slept on. A breathless, blood-soaked rager where shurikens get thrown like machine gun bullets and manifold enemies get shredded into human ballistic gel. Totally cockamamie lore put to the backdrop of CGI blade-chains and club music, ancient ninja cults just hanging out and making human sacrifices on rainy city rooftops and shit lmao. Nothing more than an excuse to rip apart a bunch of ninjas, gangsters, and government officials for 99 minutes - a decapitated head ends up in a washing machine at one point - but who wouldn't want to see that? I'll take the opposite opinion of the general consensus and totally gush about the style, I'm all for modernizing cheesy early-mid-2000s duels where we just started to really learn what mainstream stylized action was and went overboard with it. Also has an acute emphasis on physicality and production rather than leaving everything important up to the editing department - has a realized sense of framing and uses CGI as an enhancer rather than the full package. Lovingly embraces martial arts story tropes without undermining their importance, which many actioners would probably jettison out entirely. Feels much, much more like a successful and distinct love letter rather than a ripoff. Aesthetic as fuck, and Rain is godly in it.
Dean (6926 KP) rated The Thing (1982) in Movies
Oct 7, 2017
A classic Horror
This is talked about as one of the best horror films ever made and a timeless classic. It is very good, it has some truly memorable scenes that are still pretty far out 35 years after it was made!!! It has some nice effects to, no CGI here and the creature in its forms looks great. Set in a great location for a horror, a strong cast, good director this can't fail to impress. If you've not seen it yet put it to the top of your want to see list.
Dean (6926 KP) rated 300 (2007) in Movies
Nov 5, 2017
Visually impressive film
A great entertaining film, with plenty of action and a very impressive visual style similar to Sin City. Although the fights are great and very violent the use of CGI blood effects gave it quite a comic book feel and help tone the gore side down a bit. The story is very simple and to the point, not a deep film it is all about the battles and the visuals. Great if you liked Troy, Gladiator, Kingdom of Heaven but some viewers might want a bit more story to break up all the action. However it's definitely worth experiencing!