Search
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Drive Angry (2011) in Movies
Mar 13, 2020
What Happens When a Movie Meets Zero Effort
Ok, let’s not waste time with this: Drive Angry is easily one of the worst movies I’ve ever watched in my life. To be more specific, third worst behind the awful 1994 version of Fantastic Four (look that doozy up when you have a chance) and Battlefield Earth where we got to see John Travolta sporting dreads. Yes, folks, Drive Angry is bad in every single way imaginable. It is a movie you will long to forget. As far as the plot is concerned, there is a lot I tried to blot out about this movie but I’m pretty sure it’s about a man who has returned from Hell in a car he stole from the set of Fast and the Furious to prevent the sacrifice of his granddaughter by an evil cult. You say what now?
Acting: 5
I feel like these actors knew after the first week of filming that this was going to be a shit-show so they all mailed it in. Nicholas Cage, star of said shit-show, delivers his lines with the excitement of someone getting a flu shot. I won’t linger on this point, but let’s just say I’ve seen the cast of a Hallmark movie do better than these lame-duck performances.
Beginning: 1
Much like the middle and the end, the beginning is an awful disaster. It sports one of the worst setups I think I have ever seen for a movie. After ten minutes, I knew I was in for a world of pain.
Characters: 2
Cinematography/Visuals: 8
Honestly, the visuals could be a lot worse. There were some decent moments particularly when things slowed down that were bordering on looking pretty cool. While a lot of action sequences were pretty cheesy it was nice to see they at least put in a smidgeon of effort with the special effects.
Conflict: 5
Entertainment Value: 2
Memorability: 0
After the movie was over, I instantly started thinking, “Is there a time machine that I can use to get part of my life back?” There is absolutely no value in this movie, nothing to remember with the exception of the absolutely horrid filmmaking. I am still appalled this project made it through completion.
Pace: 0
Plot: 0
Story? We don’t need no stinking story! Oh, how I would have loved to be a fly on the wall during this pitch meeting. It seriously made my head hurt. They try and give you a story then throw it all out the window with repeated implausible occurrences that beat you into submission.
Resolution: 1
Overall: 24
In light of the Black Mamba Kobe Bryant’s passing, the number 24 should represent greatness. Not with my scoring of Drive Angry. Unless, of course, I’m referring to the greatness of sucking. If that’s the case, then yes, this movie is indeed great. Great and terrible.
Acting: 5
I feel like these actors knew after the first week of filming that this was going to be a shit-show so they all mailed it in. Nicholas Cage, star of said shit-show, delivers his lines with the excitement of someone getting a flu shot. I won’t linger on this point, but let’s just say I’ve seen the cast of a Hallmark movie do better than these lame-duck performances.
Beginning: 1
Much like the middle and the end, the beginning is an awful disaster. It sports one of the worst setups I think I have ever seen for a movie. After ten minutes, I knew I was in for a world of pain.
Characters: 2
Cinematography/Visuals: 8
Honestly, the visuals could be a lot worse. There were some decent moments particularly when things slowed down that were bordering on looking pretty cool. While a lot of action sequences were pretty cheesy it was nice to see they at least put in a smidgeon of effort with the special effects.
Conflict: 5
Entertainment Value: 2
Memorability: 0
After the movie was over, I instantly started thinking, “Is there a time machine that I can use to get part of my life back?” There is absolutely no value in this movie, nothing to remember with the exception of the absolutely horrid filmmaking. I am still appalled this project made it through completion.
Pace: 0
Plot: 0
Story? We don’t need no stinking story! Oh, how I would have loved to be a fly on the wall during this pitch meeting. It seriously made my head hurt. They try and give you a story then throw it all out the window with repeated implausible occurrences that beat you into submission.
Resolution: 1
Overall: 24
In light of the Black Mamba Kobe Bryant’s passing, the number 24 should represent greatness. Not with my scoring of Drive Angry. Unless, of course, I’m referring to the greatness of sucking. If that’s the case, then yes, this movie is indeed great. Great and terrible.
Andy K (10821 KP) rated Heaven's Gate (1980) in Movies
Sep 1, 2018
Masterpiece or disaster? I think a little of both.
The controversy around the production, editing, release and financial and critical disaster around Heaven's Gate is long over now. The destruction of director Michael Cimino's career and the almost bankruptcy of United Artists over this film are several of the endless stories you can read about surrounding this western epic, but now it is 38 years later. How does the film stand up?
I'd say pretty darn well.
The essential story is a semi love triangle between a rich sheriff, a lawless brute and a prostitute/madam set against the American west in 1880s Wyoming. The story involves the decision by the government to kill anyone stealing cattle for their own purposes even if it is only to feed their starving family. (Kind of hard to explain). The main characters have to decide which side they are on for the slowly building eventual bloodbath standoff climax.
I had always heard about the film and it's extremes, including its length of almost 4 hours, but had not seen until today.
The movie does quite a bit right, but the shining star is the sprawling vistas depicting the American west including Wyoming, Idaho and Montana. Cimino filmed extensively during the "magic hour" meaning he could only film for a few minutes per day during that few minute period between sunset and night.
The film does go on a bit long, but the payoff is worth the wait and I would still highly recommend any film fan give it a try. You will not be disappointed.
I'd say pretty darn well.
The essential story is a semi love triangle between a rich sheriff, a lawless brute and a prostitute/madam set against the American west in 1880s Wyoming. The story involves the decision by the government to kill anyone stealing cattle for their own purposes even if it is only to feed their starving family. (Kind of hard to explain). The main characters have to decide which side they are on for the slowly building eventual bloodbath standoff climax.
I had always heard about the film and it's extremes, including its length of almost 4 hours, but had not seen until today.
The movie does quite a bit right, but the shining star is the sprawling vistas depicting the American west including Wyoming, Idaho and Montana. Cimino filmed extensively during the "magic hour" meaning he could only film for a few minutes per day during that few minute period between sunset and night.
The film does go on a bit long, but the payoff is worth the wait and I would still highly recommend any film fan give it a try. You will not be disappointed.
Lee (2222 KP) rated Daddy's Home 2 (2017) in Movies
Dec 8, 2017
Starts off great but soon veers off into not so great territory.
This year hasn't been good for the comedy movie genre. Will Ferrell in particular managed to star in one of the worst 'comedy' movies I've seen in a long time with 'The House' and even the anticipated sequel to one of the better comedies in recent years, Bad Moms, turned out to be a complete dud. So when a similar, Christmas themed sequel to what was essentially one of the more average movies in recent years came along, my hopes weren't exactly high. The original Daddys Home coasted along on the likeable pairing of Will Ferrell and Mark Wahlberg but did feature a handful of funny elements, obviously enough to greenlight a sequel.
As mentioned previously, Daddys Home 2 is set at Christmas time. Brad and Dusty (Ferrell and Wahlberg) have worked out their differences from the first movie and are getting along just fine as 'co-dads' to the kids. When their own dads (Mel Gibson and John Lithgow) pay a visit, they decide to have a 'together' family Christmas, and Kurt (Gibson) even manages to book a luxury cabin in the snow for them to enjoy it all in. It's a bit of a whirlwind setup, but for a while it all works surprisingly well. I found myself really laughing at some scenes, it was like watching a classic Christmas family disaster along the lines of National Lampoons Christmas Vacation.
But sadly, the momentum soon drops. Scene after scene fails to hit home, and some scenes even leave you wondering what the hell they were thinking by including them in the movie in the first place. Mel Gibsons character becomes increasingly annoying and it's all just a bit of a shame really. Things manage to get back on track towards the end of the movie but it's disappointing that it doesn't retain the high level of laughs and entertainment that kicked off the first third or so.
As mentioned previously, Daddys Home 2 is set at Christmas time. Brad and Dusty (Ferrell and Wahlberg) have worked out their differences from the first movie and are getting along just fine as 'co-dads' to the kids. When their own dads (Mel Gibson and John Lithgow) pay a visit, they decide to have a 'together' family Christmas, and Kurt (Gibson) even manages to book a luxury cabin in the snow for them to enjoy it all in. It's a bit of a whirlwind setup, but for a while it all works surprisingly well. I found myself really laughing at some scenes, it was like watching a classic Christmas family disaster along the lines of National Lampoons Christmas Vacation.
But sadly, the momentum soon drops. Scene after scene fails to hit home, and some scenes even leave you wondering what the hell they were thinking by including them in the movie in the first place. Mel Gibsons character becomes increasingly annoying and it's all just a bit of a shame really. Things manage to get back on track towards the end of the movie but it's disappointing that it doesn't retain the high level of laughs and entertainment that kicked off the first third or so.
Lee (2222 KP) rated Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom (2018) in Movies
Jun 9, 2018 (Updated Jun 11, 2018)
Very different to what we're used to
Since all hell broke out in the last movie, the island of Isla Nublar has remained a relatively peaceful place for the dinosaurs to roam free. But now, the islands volcano is set to erupt, threatening their extinction once more, and bringing with it all kinds of questions as to whether man should try to save them or follow gods will and let them die.
When the decision to save them is made, along with the offer of a lovely dinosaur sanctuary for them all to live peacefully, Owen Grady (Chris Pratt) and Claire Dearing (Bryce Dallas-Howard) are enlisted to return to the island and rescue the dinosaurs from their imminent destruction. Claire is needed for her hand-print, in order to activate the dormant dinosaur tracking software on the island, and Owen for his relationship with the velociraptor Blue, who they have so far been unable to locate and capture. Unfortunately though, there are some bad guys behind the scenes who are more concerned with making a few million dollars out of the dinosaurs than rescuing them from extinction, so things don't go according to plan.
Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom is a bit of a strange mix of two distinctly different halves. The first half was pretty much covered in off in the first trailer for the movie, with the second half key plot points unbelievably given away by the rather unnecessary final trailer. The resulting movie is unfortunately something which isn't anywhere near as good as it's predecessor(s). There are some pretty weird and crazy plotlines, and the bad guys are pretty rubbish, and the whole thing runs pretty close to being a complete disaster. Although the final third or so is wildly different to anything we've seen in a Jurassic Park/World movie, it does still manage to be pretty entertaining, and there are enough decent scares and thrills along the way to keep things moving along nicely. But this could have been so much better.
When the decision to save them is made, along with the offer of a lovely dinosaur sanctuary for them all to live peacefully, Owen Grady (Chris Pratt) and Claire Dearing (Bryce Dallas-Howard) are enlisted to return to the island and rescue the dinosaurs from their imminent destruction. Claire is needed for her hand-print, in order to activate the dormant dinosaur tracking software on the island, and Owen for his relationship with the velociraptor Blue, who they have so far been unable to locate and capture. Unfortunately though, there are some bad guys behind the scenes who are more concerned with making a few million dollars out of the dinosaurs than rescuing them from extinction, so things don't go according to plan.
Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom is a bit of a strange mix of two distinctly different halves. The first half was pretty much covered in off in the first trailer for the movie, with the second half key plot points unbelievably given away by the rather unnecessary final trailer. The resulting movie is unfortunately something which isn't anywhere near as good as it's predecessor(s). There are some pretty weird and crazy plotlines, and the bad guys are pretty rubbish, and the whole thing runs pretty close to being a complete disaster. Although the final third or so is wildly different to anything we've seen in a Jurassic Park/World movie, it does still manage to be pretty entertaining, and there are enough decent scares and thrills along the way to keep things moving along nicely. But this could have been so much better.
Brian Kapfer (2 KP) created a post
May 27, 2018
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Aquaman (2018) in Movies
Jan 10, 2019
Momoa saves it from being a complete disaster
I have been a defender of the darker DC Universe films. While not as popular (nor, generally, as good) as their Marvel counterparts, they all do have their good points - until now.
AQUAMAN is not a very good film and I could really only come up with 1 good point - Jason Momoa as Aquaman. Some are calling him "the next Rock" and he certainly has the physique, the screen presence and the charm to pull this off. This movie ALMOST worked because of Momoa's presence on the screen.
Almost.
Director James Wan (Furious 7, The Conjuring) certainly had the "chops" to Direct a film like this, unfortunately, I found his Direction to be choppy. What I mean by that is that this film never really settled into a good flow. It cut back and forth - both in content and in tone - to such an extent that I, the movie-goer, could never settle back into my seat and enjoy the ride. I'm sure Mr. Wan would call this movie a "roller-coaster ride", but if it is, it is an old, wooden, rickety roller coaster, jarring the riders as they go.
As for the cast, they are "fine". From Patrick Wilson to Amber Heard to Willem DaFoe to Dolph Lundgren(!) to good ol' Nicole Kidman. They all do decent, professional jobs with what they are given, but what they are given is weak and disjointed.
I would like to point out Yahya Abdul-Mateen as the sub-villain of this piece, Black Manta. This is the most incompetent Super-Villain in any Super Hero movie to date. His Black Manta was there, obviously, to give Aquaman someone to beat. And he beats him...again...and again...and again.
All I wanted to do was "beat feet" out of the theater.
Letter Grade: C+ (for Momoa's efforts)
5 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
AQUAMAN is not a very good film and I could really only come up with 1 good point - Jason Momoa as Aquaman. Some are calling him "the next Rock" and he certainly has the physique, the screen presence and the charm to pull this off. This movie ALMOST worked because of Momoa's presence on the screen.
Almost.
Director James Wan (Furious 7, The Conjuring) certainly had the "chops" to Direct a film like this, unfortunately, I found his Direction to be choppy. What I mean by that is that this film never really settled into a good flow. It cut back and forth - both in content and in tone - to such an extent that I, the movie-goer, could never settle back into my seat and enjoy the ride. I'm sure Mr. Wan would call this movie a "roller-coaster ride", but if it is, it is an old, wooden, rickety roller coaster, jarring the riders as they go.
As for the cast, they are "fine". From Patrick Wilson to Amber Heard to Willem DaFoe to Dolph Lundgren(!) to good ol' Nicole Kidman. They all do decent, professional jobs with what they are given, but what they are given is weak and disjointed.
I would like to point out Yahya Abdul-Mateen as the sub-villain of this piece, Black Manta. This is the most incompetent Super-Villain in any Super Hero movie to date. His Black Manta was there, obviously, to give Aquaman someone to beat. And he beats him...again...and again...and again.
All I wanted to do was "beat feet" out of the theater.
Letter Grade: C+ (for Momoa's efforts)
5 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Chloe (2010) in Movies
Dec 3, 2019
Decent Beginning Then All Downhill
A woman struggling in her marriage hires a call girl to come on to her husband to see if he will cheat. If Chloe sounds like a recipe for disaster in real life, just wait until I dive into the movie! It’s not a complete failure, but it fails enough for me to highly recommend avoiding it.
Acting: 9
Beginning: 7
All the players are introduced in the first ten minutes doing their respective jobs. You can tell the movie will be shrouded in a bit of mystery. I didn’t hate the way it started, but I was looking for a bit more originality.
Characters: 10
Chloe (Amanda Seyfried) is an intriguing character in and of herself. I was drawn to her and I couldn’t figure out why. Is she crazy? Misunderstood? Is she making everything up? What the hell is with this woman? The other characters are merely a moth to her flame. It’s not to say I didn’t like them, but they would fall flat without Chloe at the helm.
Cinematography/Visuals: 9
As you’re watching this movie, you definitely get the erotic thriller feel which I think is exactly what director Atom Egoyan is going for. There are certain scenes that seem to jump off the screen with sensuality and intrigue. It keeps your eyes rooted to the screen while little details are shot to keep you guessing.
Conflict: 7
Entertainment Value: 7
Memorability: 6
Pace: 6
Plot: 3
Remember my description in the opening paragraph? Yeah, it somehow manages to get even dumber than that. It’s a shame because I think the movie definitely could have been redeemed with a slightly better storyline.
Resolution: 5
Overall: 69
Going back over my notes for Chloe, I notice I have a lot of whats, whys, and hows. That’s usually not a good sign. Few loops were closed here which is a burden for a viewer already sitting through a wandering story. Close, but no cigar.
Acting: 9
Beginning: 7
All the players are introduced in the first ten minutes doing their respective jobs. You can tell the movie will be shrouded in a bit of mystery. I didn’t hate the way it started, but I was looking for a bit more originality.
Characters: 10
Chloe (Amanda Seyfried) is an intriguing character in and of herself. I was drawn to her and I couldn’t figure out why. Is she crazy? Misunderstood? Is she making everything up? What the hell is with this woman? The other characters are merely a moth to her flame. It’s not to say I didn’t like them, but they would fall flat without Chloe at the helm.
Cinematography/Visuals: 9
As you’re watching this movie, you definitely get the erotic thriller feel which I think is exactly what director Atom Egoyan is going for. There are certain scenes that seem to jump off the screen with sensuality and intrigue. It keeps your eyes rooted to the screen while little details are shot to keep you guessing.
Conflict: 7
Entertainment Value: 7
Memorability: 6
Pace: 6
Plot: 3
Remember my description in the opening paragraph? Yeah, it somehow manages to get even dumber than that. It’s a shame because I think the movie definitely could have been redeemed with a slightly better storyline.
Resolution: 5
Overall: 69
Going back over my notes for Chloe, I notice I have a lot of whats, whys, and hows. That’s usually not a good sign. Few loops were closed here which is a burden for a viewer already sitting through a wandering story. Close, but no cigar.
Danny Boyle recommended Eureka (1983) in Movies (curated)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Underwater (2020) in Movies
Feb 16, 2020 (Updated Feb 16, 2020)
Frenetic action in murky water - baffling (2 more)
Scientific inconsistencies
Waterlogged Alien wannabe
Soggy and forgettable
I had a sinking feeling (excuse the pun) about this movie from the word go. It's a lazy approach to 'mansplain' the whole set up for the movie through digital news posts during the main titles. It feels more patronising to the audience than having main titles and then a 'Star Wars-style' synopsis.
Once into the movie, director William Eubank gives us the bare minimum of character set-up for our heroine while she brushes her teeth*. (And no way did she even follow the British Dental Association recommendation of two minutes brushing!) (* Interestingly, the trailer seems to show some above water scenes/dialogue and introductions to the rest of the crew that never made the final cut.)
And then....
BAM!!!
I was thinking that the manic action that follows was some sort of dream or flashback. But no. We are pitched headlong into the story without pause as disaster strikes. It all feels positively indecent.
For we are seven miles down in the Mariana trench, when a drilling station springs a leak.
Now call me a cynic, but I would have *thought* that, at that depth, a single leak would implode the whole station in about 10 seconds flat. But then that wouldn't be cinematic enough, and would be a much shorter movie!
And there are numerous other scientific implausibilities. For example, diving helmets that appear to be able to withstand 15,750 psi of pressure (I Googled it) can be smashed-in by a woman by just bashing it.
Sigh.
We are in 'Alien-lite' territory again. Just as in last year's "The Meg", those pesky humans have disturbed something in its home territory.... and it's suitably pissed-off. The action centres on hippy-chick engineer Norah (Kristen Stewart). The script neatly describes her as a "flat-chested elfin creature"... a fact which every male in the audience has thought (come on guys, admit it , you did!) from the immediately preceding scene.
It was never entirely clear to me what skills Norah was supposed to have.... it seemed to flex from diving to electrical engineering to computer engineering.
Stewart is a handy actress to have in a movie, but here she is mostly relegated to lots of shots of her athletic body running through corridors in her skimpy crop-top and knickers.
Supporting Stewart are veteran French actor Vincent Cassel as the mission captain; "the funny one" Paul (T.J. Miller); the trusty male action figure Smith (John Gallagher Jr.); and Emily - the 'less-flat chested but screamy one' (Jessica Henwick). Emily also gets to run around in a T-shirt and knickers: you kind of quickly get to know the audience the film is trying to appeal to.
As will be obvious if you've seen any of these types of film before, not all of these folks are going to make it.
As this movie is presumably filmed in a small water tank in a Louisiana studio. Clearly the memo said "fill it with murky water so the audience can't see the sides". "And just for good measure, let's film it with hand-help rapidly moving cameras". The result is that a lot of the time, when there was a burst of frenetic underwater action, I had NO IDEA what was actually going on.
In this way, the movie reminded me of the shark B-movie "47 Metres Down" from a few years ago.
This is certainly not "Alien". Although similarly set, this is not "The Abyss" either. It's most similar perhaps to "Life", but without the clever twist ending.
It's also not a truly TERRIBLE movie either. But unfortunately this is one of the most "meh" action movies I've seen in the past year. It's just brain-crushingly forgettable.
There was only one vaguely memorable shot in the whole movie: a final shot of Kristen Stewart. But that just serves to make me think.... 'Stewart deserves much better than this'.
For a movie concerning itself with a lack of oxygen, watching this felt like a waste of it.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/02/15/one-manns-movies-film-review-underwater-2020/ ).
Once into the movie, director William Eubank gives us the bare minimum of character set-up for our heroine while she brushes her teeth*. (And no way did she even follow the British Dental Association recommendation of two minutes brushing!) (* Interestingly, the trailer seems to show some above water scenes/dialogue and introductions to the rest of the crew that never made the final cut.)
And then....
BAM!!!
I was thinking that the manic action that follows was some sort of dream or flashback. But no. We are pitched headlong into the story without pause as disaster strikes. It all feels positively indecent.
For we are seven miles down in the Mariana trench, when a drilling station springs a leak.
Now call me a cynic, but I would have *thought* that, at that depth, a single leak would implode the whole station in about 10 seconds flat. But then that wouldn't be cinematic enough, and would be a much shorter movie!
And there are numerous other scientific implausibilities. For example, diving helmets that appear to be able to withstand 15,750 psi of pressure (I Googled it) can be smashed-in by a woman by just bashing it.
Sigh.
We are in 'Alien-lite' territory again. Just as in last year's "The Meg", those pesky humans have disturbed something in its home territory.... and it's suitably pissed-off. The action centres on hippy-chick engineer Norah (Kristen Stewart). The script neatly describes her as a "flat-chested elfin creature"... a fact which every male in the audience has thought (come on guys, admit it , you did!) from the immediately preceding scene.
It was never entirely clear to me what skills Norah was supposed to have.... it seemed to flex from diving to electrical engineering to computer engineering.
Stewart is a handy actress to have in a movie, but here she is mostly relegated to lots of shots of her athletic body running through corridors in her skimpy crop-top and knickers.
Supporting Stewart are veteran French actor Vincent Cassel as the mission captain; "the funny one" Paul (T.J. Miller); the trusty male action figure Smith (John Gallagher Jr.); and Emily - the 'less-flat chested but screamy one' (Jessica Henwick). Emily also gets to run around in a T-shirt and knickers: you kind of quickly get to know the audience the film is trying to appeal to.
As will be obvious if you've seen any of these types of film before, not all of these folks are going to make it.
As this movie is presumably filmed in a small water tank in a Louisiana studio. Clearly the memo said "fill it with murky water so the audience can't see the sides". "And just for good measure, let's film it with hand-help rapidly moving cameras". The result is that a lot of the time, when there was a burst of frenetic underwater action, I had NO IDEA what was actually going on.
In this way, the movie reminded me of the shark B-movie "47 Metres Down" from a few years ago.
This is certainly not "Alien". Although similarly set, this is not "The Abyss" either. It's most similar perhaps to "Life", but without the clever twist ending.
It's also not a truly TERRIBLE movie either. But unfortunately this is one of the most "meh" action movies I've seen in the past year. It's just brain-crushingly forgettable.
There was only one vaguely memorable shot in the whole movie: a final shot of Kristen Stewart. But that just serves to make me think.... 'Stewart deserves much better than this'.
For a movie concerning itself with a lack of oxygen, watching this felt like a waste of it.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/02/15/one-manns-movies-film-review-underwater-2020/ ).
Airport 1975 (1974)
6.4
Rate It
Movie Watch
"Something hit us...the crew is dead...help us, please, please help us!" With these terrifying...