Watched “Journey to the Center of the Earth” on the plane’s tiny LCD screen, with really horrible headphones. And wasn’t impressed at all. Yeah, maybe I missed a whole lot of special effects, but the movie still sucked. It felt like a really cheap attempt to recreate one of the Brendan Fraser action-adventure movies. They’ve got Brendan, but failed at everything else.
5 out of 10
Watched “My Mom’s New Boyfriend” (aka “Homeland Security) on the plane. The film does not deserve much. It couldn’t be spoiled by tiny LCD screen with really poor image quality and the most horrible headphones that I ever plugged into my ears. The story is simplistic and predictable. Most of the dialogs are horrible and were only saved by the actors themselves. There was no high or low point in the film – it was all on the same level, and that level was pretty low. It’s a pity to see both Antonio Banderas and Meg Ryan in a film like this.
5 out of 10.
The trailer for “The Spirit” was really nice and I wanted to see the movie. However, when I checked IMDB page and saw the 5.something rating, I got worried. There are many examples when my personal rating differs a lot from the IMDB one, but 5.something is always a cautious sign.
And since there wasn’t much else to see, I still went for it. Unfortunately, this time IMDB was quite right. The film feels like a leftover from “Sin City”. There is nothing original about it. Nothing much to enjoy. And, honestly, nothing much to see in it. Most of the time is spent in silly dialogues and monologues. And these are so silly that they actually harm the good acting that could have been done.
The only scene to remember is the one with Samuel Jackson dressed as a German nazi, and Scarlett Johansson helping him out. Everything is else is boring, overdone, and unoriginal.
3 stars it is.
Some days ago I went to see “Quantum of Solace” in the cinema. This is the continuation of the James Bond agent 007 series.
It ended up being a pretty good action film, with car chases, boat and airlane fights, shootings, and explosions, etc. But, on the other hand, it has the least to do with James Bond series from all the episodes that I ever saw. Bond movies always had plenty of style, spy gadgets, sexy ladies, and English accent. In the one, most are either totally absent or overminimized.
However I still enjoyed the action and all the special effects – well suited for the big screen. I’ll give it an overall 6 out of 10.
Either one of Robert De Niro and Al Pacino is enough to attract attention to the movie. When they are both in the same movie – that’s something that needs to be seen, no matter what the critics or ratings say. And that’s why I went to watch “Righteous Kill” today.
Altogether, the film was rather average – not much dynamics and action for a police movie, predictable story with a lot of cliches, dialogs really off sometimes, and so, and so forth. But. There was enough good acting, and there was enough thought provoking. I mean it’s not a philosophical movie by any measure, but it covers a few morals and gives enough time to the audience to poke around the good, the evil, and the fine line between the two.
Overall, maybe not worthy the big screen, but good enough for a DVD rent. 6.5 out of 10.
I just came back from the movies – watched “Max Payne” with a friend of mine. I wanted to see this film since I came across the trailer. I know a few people who were waiting quite a bit for this film, since there is a video game with the same title, and, if I am not mistaken, everything started with a comics. But don’t take my word for it.
The film turned out to be very pleasing visually. Lots and lots of really cool special effects, focal points, perspective changes, and the like. Lots of things are done properly – snow, water, fire, broken glass, flying bullets, explosions, and so on and so forth. And all that comes together with nice soundtrack. Pleasant experience.
As for the rest of it – the film was pretty weak. The story is one of those usual stories that you have seen in a million other stories. Characters aren’t very well developed though. And the best characters never live up to their fame. Nicely looking lady – killed in the beginning. Really evil looking guy – even worse. There is a lack of major battle, and whatever replaces it is a sorry excuse. Disappointing.
Altogether, I’d give it a 6.5 out of 10. If you like good visuals, then go see it on the big screen. You won’t be disappointed no matter how lacking the rest of the film is. But if you need more than just special effects, than wait for the DVD to come out. That’s about all I can say about this one.
Yesterday I went to see “The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor“. I thought that the previous two movies (“The Mummy” and “The Mummy Returns“) were entertaining, so I was looking forward to this one. However, there were quite a few reviews that mentioned that this sequel sucked. That got me into doubts whether I should see it at all or not, but finally I decided to go.
The flick wasn’t bad at all. It was somewhat crowded with characters, and the plot was sort of weak, but the important stuff was still there – mummy, Brendan Fraser, and tonnes of special effects. Shooting, fighting, car chases, airplanes, zombie battles, exposions – these were all in excess.
But the critics were somewhat right. This wasn’t as good the previous mummy movies. First of all, the mummy itself wasn’t strong or scary. In the previous films, the Egyptian mummy was so powerful that it was making warriors out of sand dunes, commanding millions of flash eating beatles, and moving stormy clouds in formations. A hero had to fight that mummy, because it was too devastating before it was even getting into its full powers. In this film though, the mummy was more like a pissed off guy getting his life back. Whoever gets on his way was getting his butt kicked. There was some potential for evil afterwords, but it’s just not the same. Secondly, Rachel Weisz wasn’t in this movie, and she couldn’t have been substitute by anyone. Not in a million years. Thirdly, there was something obviously dogdy about the storyline itself. It felt like the good guys has become the bad guys, and the bad guys has become the good guys. And since it wasn’t going very well on its own, some really bad dialogues and mottos were added to the mix. And that didn’t mix that well.
Overall, I’d give it a 6 out of 10. Not a bad entertainment flick if you are to see it in the movies, but don’t be expecting much out of it, and I doubt that it’s worth a DVD purchase.
P.S.: There is no way Brandon Fraser could win a fight against Jet Li. No way!
These days there isn’t much choice of what to watch in the movies. So I ended up at “Be Kind Rewind“. It’s a comedy with Jack Black and Mos Def, both of who are often funny. Also, I wanted to see how Danny Glover is doing these days, since the last time I saw him was in “Lethal Weapon 4” or so.
“Be Kind Rewind” is a bit of an akward film. It’s funny, it’s sad, it’s cheap, and it’s kind. Some parts of it are so hilarious that I was laughing out loud. Yet other parsts of it don’t make any sense at all. Some scenes follow each other naturally, yet some other feel like they were glued together very roughly.
Overall, I’ll give it a 6 out of 10. Not something that I would strongly recommend, but not your regular movie experience either.
The other day I went to see “The Dark Knight“, also known as the latest story in the series about Batman. I am not a big fan of superhero comics, with Batman being no exception. But I’ve seen all the movies so far.
I have to say that this one was the worst. It was too long and too boring. It had great cast, but that didn’t help the film one bit. There are a few special effects, but the overall boredom burries them in the long propagandic dialogues. In fact, the movie is total crap except for one bit, which makes it worth watching – The Joker.
Heath Ledger did an excellent job with this character. It was by all means the best villain I’ve ever seen in the movies. Heath Ledger even outdid Jack Nicholson, who played The Joker in “Batman” (1992). Heath’s Joker was the scary kind. That person was so evil and … broken, that you wouldn’t want him to exist on this planet at all. But, at the same time, he was so realistic that you could easily meet somebody very similar (minus the make-up, of course) just around the corner. Really, a masterpiece.
As it stands, it’s difficult to rate this film. I’ll give it a 5 out of 10, with all 5 points being for The Joker alone. If you aren’t into movie villains, avoid this film at all costs.
I needed a little focus switch, so I went to the cinema to see “The Incredible Hulk“. I didn’t particularly liked the first part – “Hulk“, but there was nothing better to choose from anyway.
Not a lot of improvements I must say. Special effects are pretty average. There are a few sparks, but overall – too cheap and unrealistic. It would have been a lot better to use photography for scenery and background objects rather than to render them. Operator’s work was pretty average. Scenes of Brazil towns were especially disappointing, since those were so reach with details, which were lost by operators and their equipment (shaky helicopter shots and such). The story is still boring and way over dramatic. It pushes for Forest Gump or something. Edward Norton and Tim Roth were acting good, and that improved the filim a lot. Liv Tyler tried as usual, but I am not a big fan of her.
Overall: 6 out of 10.