Search
Search results
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated 2 Fast 2 Furious (2003) in Movies
Mar 11, 2020
Faster Than the Newer Films...But Also Much Worse
Brian O’Connor (Paul Walker) tries to redeem himself from the first film by taking out a gang of car enthusiasts.
Acting: 4
Beginning: 6
Characters: 0
These characters are about as interesting as an empty takeout box. Not only is there no kind of depth whatsoever, I never really liked the characters to begin with. I can usually deal with characters not growing if they’re at least interesting, but 2 Fast 2 Furious gives us neither. The cars have more characters than the characters themselves. Might has well let them do the talking instead.
Cinematography/Visuals: 4
Speaking from the future, the car chases/race don’t nearly have the same impact as the latter films. In comparison, they are boring and stale and aren’t enough to carry the movie. Overall it’s shot in gimmicky fashion with lots of slowmo and near-misses. It is painful to watch at times.
Conflict: 7
Entertainment Value: 5
Sometimes a movie can be so bad that it keeps your interest solely for the fact that you want to see what crappity crap crap is going to happen next. I fell asleep on more than one occasion which is a horrible thing to say about a movie that revolves around car chases. There was little in the way of redemption here.
Memorability: 5
One line made me give this score above a zero, a line I will always remember for the rest of my days. At one point, Walker almost put me in a casket by saying, “I said forget about it, cuh.” This line has since become the source of a number of memes and Youtube clips and I can still burst into laughter if I were to watch it right now. Regarding everything else about the movie? Forget about it, cuh.
Pace: 9
If I’m holding it to the standard of the latter movies, I do have to acknowledge that the movie gets through its plot at a fairly quick pace. It is easily one of the shortest in the franchise as almost all of the others top two hours. Yes, it still put me to sleep, but only because the content sucked.
Plot: 4
Sports a story that my six-year-old nephew could have come up with. Barely believable, it has holes inside of holes. I almost wish they had just said, “Screw it. Just look at the cool cars.”
Resolution: 5
Overall: 49
Dumpster fire. Burning poop. A fly walking on a windowsill with only one wing. These are all things that are more interesting than 2 Fast 2 Furious. Talk about a nightmare.
Acting: 4
Beginning: 6
Characters: 0
These characters are about as interesting as an empty takeout box. Not only is there no kind of depth whatsoever, I never really liked the characters to begin with. I can usually deal with characters not growing if they’re at least interesting, but 2 Fast 2 Furious gives us neither. The cars have more characters than the characters themselves. Might has well let them do the talking instead.
Cinematography/Visuals: 4
Speaking from the future, the car chases/race don’t nearly have the same impact as the latter films. In comparison, they are boring and stale and aren’t enough to carry the movie. Overall it’s shot in gimmicky fashion with lots of slowmo and near-misses. It is painful to watch at times.
Conflict: 7
Entertainment Value: 5
Sometimes a movie can be so bad that it keeps your interest solely for the fact that you want to see what crappity crap crap is going to happen next. I fell asleep on more than one occasion which is a horrible thing to say about a movie that revolves around car chases. There was little in the way of redemption here.
Memorability: 5
One line made me give this score above a zero, a line I will always remember for the rest of my days. At one point, Walker almost put me in a casket by saying, “I said forget about it, cuh.” This line has since become the source of a number of memes and Youtube clips and I can still burst into laughter if I were to watch it right now. Regarding everything else about the movie? Forget about it, cuh.
Pace: 9
If I’m holding it to the standard of the latter movies, I do have to acknowledge that the movie gets through its plot at a fairly quick pace. It is easily one of the shortest in the franchise as almost all of the others top two hours. Yes, it still put me to sleep, but only because the content sucked.
Plot: 4
Sports a story that my six-year-old nephew could have come up with. Barely believable, it has holes inside of holes. I almost wish they had just said, “Screw it. Just look at the cool cars.”
Resolution: 5
Overall: 49
Dumpster fire. Burning poop. A fly walking on a windowsill with only one wing. These are all things that are more interesting than 2 Fast 2 Furious. Talk about a nightmare.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Laggies (2014) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Laggies is a film that I walked into open minded and a little bit excited where they might take the storyline. As a millennial, I can relate to Keira Knightley’s character Megan as she is approaching 30 and she does not really have any clear direction in life. So when her boyfriend proposes, she freaks out and escapes for a week with her new 16 year old friend and her father. Believable, however rather than this film deciding to become something more akin to 2004’s Garden State, it instead abruptly turns in a “Hollywood” direction, badly.
While watching Laggies, I realized it has some pacing issues. At a 99 minute runtime it felt closer to two hours than a quick and entertaining story it should have been. While walking out the theater I thought that was the intent of the film and was a bit forgiving. Megan doesn’t exactly know where her life is going and neither do we. However as the days passed after watching this film, I realized these pacing issues made like this film less and less each day.
As the days passed, something else I realized was that Keira Knightley is not a leading lady. Her performance was boring, uninteresting and at times unlikable for a character that could have had layers, but did not. It made it hard to understand why she was doing the things that she was doing and why she ultimately comes to the conclusions she does. She seems like she is a 14 year old girl who “doesn’t talk” and we are supposed to look at her “British” smile and understand her without any acting to shed insight on her thoughts, which is actually annoying.
However her younger counter part, Chloe Grace Moretz (Kick Ass), shows yet again how she is a strong up and coming actress who has a good range already. She is believable as self-reflective and brooding 16 year old who is hoping and looking for something more for herself and her father played by Sam Rockwell (Moon). Rockwell reminds audiences yet again how solid an actor he is. He is actually the brightest star in this film as he steals every scene he is in and even manages to elevate Knightley to be likeable and attractive.
In the end, this film is not worth the full price of admission. It is more of a red box or film you may pause and watch when it comes on cable. Moretz and Rockwell are the bright spots of this film and fans of them may want to check this out, however Knightley is not a leading lady and this film suffers from her poor performance and an abruptly Hollywood script.
While watching Laggies, I realized it has some pacing issues. At a 99 minute runtime it felt closer to two hours than a quick and entertaining story it should have been. While walking out the theater I thought that was the intent of the film and was a bit forgiving. Megan doesn’t exactly know where her life is going and neither do we. However as the days passed after watching this film, I realized these pacing issues made like this film less and less each day.
As the days passed, something else I realized was that Keira Knightley is not a leading lady. Her performance was boring, uninteresting and at times unlikable for a character that could have had layers, but did not. It made it hard to understand why she was doing the things that she was doing and why she ultimately comes to the conclusions she does. She seems like she is a 14 year old girl who “doesn’t talk” and we are supposed to look at her “British” smile and understand her without any acting to shed insight on her thoughts, which is actually annoying.
However her younger counter part, Chloe Grace Moretz (Kick Ass), shows yet again how she is a strong up and coming actress who has a good range already. She is believable as self-reflective and brooding 16 year old who is hoping and looking for something more for herself and her father played by Sam Rockwell (Moon). Rockwell reminds audiences yet again how solid an actor he is. He is actually the brightest star in this film as he steals every scene he is in and even manages to elevate Knightley to be likeable and attractive.
In the end, this film is not worth the full price of admission. It is more of a red box or film you may pause and watch when it comes on cable. Moretz and Rockwell are the bright spots of this film and fans of them may want to check this out, however Knightley is not a leading lady and this film suffers from her poor performance and an abruptly Hollywood script.
Speed Distance Time Calculator
Education
App
Calculate either speed, distance or time by entering the other two measurements. ► EASY TO USE -...
Lonely Planet Chateaux of the Loire Valley Road Trips
Lonely Planet, Alexis Averbuck, Oliver Berry and Jean-Bernard Carillet
Book
Lonely Planet: The world's leading travel guide publisher Discover the freedom of open roads with...
Lonely Planet Laos
Lonely Planet, Greg Bloom, Nick Ray and Richard Waters
Book
Lonely Planet: The world's leading travel guide publisher Lonely Planet Laos is your passport to all...
Lonely Planet Pocket Edinburgh
Book
Lonely Planet: The world's leading travel guide publisher Lonely Planet's Pocket Edinburgh is your...
Lonely Planet Portugal
Regis St. Louis, Lonely Planet, Kate Armstrong and Anja Mutic
Book
Lonely Planet: The world's leading travel guide publisher Lonely Planet Portugal is your passport to...
Lonely Planet Vienna
Lonely Planet, Marc Di Duca, Kerry Christiani and Anthony Haywood
Book
Lonely Planet: The world's leading travel guide publisher Lonely Planet Vienna is your passport to...
Oracle SQL Developer
Book
Learn Database design, development,and administration using the feature-rich SQL Developer 4.1...
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Re-Animator (1985) in Movies
Oct 30, 2020
Jeffrey Combs (2 more)
Bruce Abbott
Stuart Gordan
Mad Man
Re-Animator- is frankenstien. But alot more gorer. So much gory, so much viloence, so much horror. Its different than frankenstein, but has a lot in common.
The plot: Loosely based on H P Lovecraft's classic horror tale, Herbert West is a young scientist who has a good head on his shoulders and another on the lab table in front of him.
Originally devised by Gordon as a theatrical stage production and later a half-hour television pilot, the television script was revised to become a feature film.
The film originally received an X rating, and was later edited to obtain an R rating for video rental stores.
The idea to make Re-Animator came from a discussion Stuart Gordon had with friends one night about vampire films. He felt that there were too many Dracula films and expressed a desire to see a Frankenstein film. Someone asked if he had read "Herbert West–Reanimator" by H. P. Lovecraft.
Originally, Gordon was going to adapt Lovecraft's story for the stage, but eventually decided along with writers Dennis Paoli and William Norris to make it as a half-hour television pilot. The story was set around the turn of the century, and they soon realized that it would be too expensive to recreate. They updated it to the present day in Chicago with the intention of using actors from the Organic Theater company. They were told that the half hour format was not salable and so they made it an hour, writing 13 episodes. Special effects technician Bob Greenberg, who had worked on John Carpenter's Dark Star, repeatedly told Gordon that the only market for horror was in feature films, and introduced him to producer Brian Yuzna. Gordon showed Yuzna the script for the pilot and the 12 additional episodes.
Yuzna described the film as having the "sort of shock sensibility of an Evil Dead with the production values of, hopefully, The Howling."
Naulin said that Re-Animator was the bloodiest film he had ever worked on. In the past, he had never used more than two gallons of blood on a film; on Re-Animator, he used 24 gallons.
The biggest makeup challenge in the film was the headless Dr. Hill zombie. Tony Doublin designed the mechanical effects and was faced with the problem of proportion once the 9–10 inches of the head were removed from the body. Each scene forced him to use a different technique. For example, one technique involved building an upper torso that actor David Gale could bend over and stick his head through so that it appeared to be the one that the walking corpse was carrying around.
Its excellent gory film
The plot: Loosely based on H P Lovecraft's classic horror tale, Herbert West is a young scientist who has a good head on his shoulders and another on the lab table in front of him.
Originally devised by Gordon as a theatrical stage production and later a half-hour television pilot, the television script was revised to become a feature film.
The film originally received an X rating, and was later edited to obtain an R rating for video rental stores.
The idea to make Re-Animator came from a discussion Stuart Gordon had with friends one night about vampire films. He felt that there were too many Dracula films and expressed a desire to see a Frankenstein film. Someone asked if he had read "Herbert West–Reanimator" by H. P. Lovecraft.
Originally, Gordon was going to adapt Lovecraft's story for the stage, but eventually decided along with writers Dennis Paoli and William Norris to make it as a half-hour television pilot. The story was set around the turn of the century, and they soon realized that it would be too expensive to recreate. They updated it to the present day in Chicago with the intention of using actors from the Organic Theater company. They were told that the half hour format was not salable and so they made it an hour, writing 13 episodes. Special effects technician Bob Greenberg, who had worked on John Carpenter's Dark Star, repeatedly told Gordon that the only market for horror was in feature films, and introduced him to producer Brian Yuzna. Gordon showed Yuzna the script for the pilot and the 12 additional episodes.
Yuzna described the film as having the "sort of shock sensibility of an Evil Dead with the production values of, hopefully, The Howling."
Naulin said that Re-Animator was the bloodiest film he had ever worked on. In the past, he had never used more than two gallons of blood on a film; on Re-Animator, he used 24 gallons.
The biggest makeup challenge in the film was the headless Dr. Hill zombie. Tony Doublin designed the mechanical effects and was faced with the problem of proportion once the 9–10 inches of the head were removed from the body. Each scene forced him to use a different technique. For example, one technique involved building an upper torso that actor David Gale could bend over and stick his head through so that it appeared to be the one that the walking corpse was carrying around.
Its excellent gory film