HonestMovieReviews Own Thread [Archive]

HonestMovieReviews

10-13-12, 04:55 PM

Hello,

My name is Travis and I love to watch movies. Not only do I love to watch movies, but I also love to rate them on a scale of 1-5; 1 being the worst and 5 being the best. I also rate them by giving them 'recommendations.' Even if a movie is superb, and it gets a 5/5, that doesn't always mean it's a 'must-own.' Sometimes I'll give a movie a 5/5, but I'll just recommend to the viewer that it's a 'must-rent' instead. No matter how many times I watch a movie, I'm always reviewing it.

When I review movies, I don't just look at the 'entertainment' factor, but I also look at many other things that can make or break a movie. These 'things' include: Music, directing, acting, plot, style, pace, dialog, cinematography, plot twists, characters, etc... I'm very tough on movies and I don't hand out freebies, so when I give a movie a really good review, it deserves it.

I'll be honest with you, there might be a few spelling/grammar issues in my reviews, but you'll always get an honest movie review and you'll always get a movie trailer included with my review. While writing movie reviews is a work in progress for me, I hope you can see the passion I have for movies and I hope that you'll follow me with my passion through all the years. Most of all, I hope you enjoy reading my reviews and I thank you for taking the time to read them.

:)

Movie Scores For the Movies I've Reviewed:

*Basic (2003)- 3/5
*Dr. Seuss's The Lorax (2012)- 2/5
*Friends With Kids (2012)- 3/5
*Inkheart (2008)- 2.5/5
*ParaNorman (2012)- 4/5
*Resident Evil: Retribution (2012)- 1.5/5
*Skyfall (2012)- 5/5
*Taken 2 (2012)- 1/5
*The Amazing Spider-Man (2012)- 4.5/5
*The Expendables (2010)- 2/5
*The Expendables 2 (2012)- 4/5
*The Five-Year Engagement (2012)- 2/5
*The Hills Have Eyes (2006)- 3.5/5
*Tommy Boy (1995)- 4.5/5

HonestMovieReviews

10-13-12, 05:01 PM

Recently watched movie review:
*Taken 2 (2012)- 1/5

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8eE5T6iMsg (click the link to watch trailer).

Taken 2 is a sequel to the 2008 film (Taken) which is newly directed by Oliver Megaton. It stars Liam Neeson, Maggie Grace, Famke Janssen, and Rade Sherbedgia. I love the first movie, so does Taken 2 live up to my expectations? Ha, it's not even in the same league, and it's the worst movie I've seen so far this year.

Bryan Mills (Liam Neeson) killed a lot of men while searching for his daughter, Kim (Maggie Grace), who was taken in Paris by a human trafficking ring. Family members of the men, whom he killed in the first film, are mourning those who died. Murad (Rade Sherbedgia) who's the employer of the men and father of Marko, a victim whom Bryan killed, swears revenge, and states that they will find Bryan to avenge the deaths of their loved ones. Murad and is men capture Bryan and his ex wife, Lenore (Famke Janssen), while Kim lucks out and helps her parents escape death.

Taken 2 falls flat in every single way possible compared to the awesomeness of the first Taken movie. Let me start off by saying the only good thing about the film... (crickets), (crickets), (crickets)... That's right, there's nothing good to say about it.

There are so many 'I just rolled my eyes' moments in the film, and there's very little that's believable; While Bryan is involved in a gun standoff with Mured's men, the kind men let him whip out his phone to warn Kim that he and Lenore are being taken (I just rolled my eyes). Kim can't pass 2 driving tests, but she can throw grenades, do geometry, jump from rooftop to rooftop, and can drive like a stunt driver in a chase scene (I just rolled my eyes). Murad, who knows Bryan can kill just about anyone, gives Lenore a baby gash, hangs her upside down, tells Bryan, who's tied to a pole, that she's got 30 minutes until she dies, leaves the room with them unattended, and expects everything to go as plan (I just rolled my eyes). When Bryan obviously breaks free and saves Lenore, he later fights some of Murad's men, but somehow he's got special powers this time around; Bryan can simply put his hands on someone's face, and that person will instantly die (I just rolled my eyes).

The first Taken was far more energetic, there was more dialog, the villain isn't old and pathetic, and events were much more believable. Taken 2 is soulless compared to the first, and should be avoided at all costs as this is a simple cash grab. If you're a fan of the first (like me) and wanted a sequel, use your imagination instead, and continue to just watch the first Taken. If you couldn't tell by now, Taken 2 gets a recommended 'must-pass.'

HonestMovieReviews

10-13-12, 05:06 PM

Recently watched movie review:
*Resident Evil: Retribution (2012)- 1.5/5

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fetL5JuKGv4 (click the link to watch trailer).

Resident Evil: Retribution is the 5th installment in the Resident Evil film series. It's based off the Resident Evil video game series, and is written and directed by Paul W.S. Anderson for the 3rd time. The movie has many returning actors and characters, and the series introduces new characters from the video game. Alice (Milla Jovovich) is captured by the Umbrella Corporation, but escapes, and continues to hunt those responsible for the T-Virus outbreak.

For a movie series like Resident Evil, I try to watch every single movie again in the series before seeing the latest. I do this for many reasons including being able to fully review from the series. For Resident Evil: Retribution, I didn't watch the previous movies again before watching this film. From memory, I've never been a fan of the Resident Evil movie franchise, and I recall giving Resident Evil: Afterlife (2010) a 3/5 (the highest rating in the series) when I saw it back in 2010. Simply put, Resident Evil: Retribution was a waste of my time and money.

For starters, the plot is very uninteresting and I didn't care what happened or who died. Secondly, the deaf child character bugged me; I've never seen a deaf person speak so well, and why are all of the characters acting like she can hear them without sign language? Thirdly, the acting is simply terrible. Fourthly, why are so many of the action scenes in slow-mo? In most movies I love when the action is slowed down, but when I don't care about the movie, it just makes it drag on even longer. Fifthly, I thought the film needed to explain itself a lot more. There are so many unanswered questions, it boggles my mind. Sixthly, there's so much action and not enough story. Lastly, this series has run its course, and unfortunately there's probably going to be another one on the way.

Now, there are some things I did like about Resident Evil: Retribution. The new gadgets are cool and the action scenes kick-ass. I really liked the opening credits, and while I saw the movie in 2D, I will recommend that you see it in 3D as there's plenty of cool 3D moments. Well, that about sums up the good parts about the movie. I'm not happy that I didn't watch the previous films again before watching Retribution, and when I watch the series over again, my rating and review might change, but I feel confident enough to write a review now. Overall, if you're a fan of this series, you'll probably like this new edition, but can you really take that much more? To the rest of you viewers, I have to give Resident Evil: Retribution a recommended 'must-pass.'

HonestMovieReviews

10-13-12, 05:09 PM

Recently watched movie review:
*Dr Seuss's The Lorax (2012)- 2/5

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bHdzTUNw-4 (click the link to watch trailer).

Dr Seuss's The Lorax is a family friendly, animation film that's based on the book of the same name. Ted (voiced by Zac Efron) lives in a 'real' treeless town called 'Thneedville.' He has a major crush on Audrey (voiced by Taylor Swift) and will do anything for her attention and love. You see, the town of Thneedville has trees spread throughout the city, but the trees are all fake. Ted finds out that Audrey would get married on the spot if someone were to find a real tree. He asks his grandma (voiced by Betty White) where he can find one. She suggests that he find 'The Once-ler," as he might know where to find a real tree. Ted finds The Once-ler (voiced by Ed Helms), but is asked to listen to a story before finding out where one might be. The Once-ler tells a story of his past, and soon you'll find out why 'The Lorax' (voiced by Danny DeVito) pops out of a tree stump to protect his world.

From the same studio (Illumination Entertainment) that created Despicable Me (my favorite movie of 2010), I had hope that The Lorax would be at least a decent film. Unfortunately, I almost had to stop watching it as I was getting very disappointed with the quality of the film. I found that the movie focused too much on 'save the environment' and 'capitalism is bad' messages rather than making a good film. I found the writing to be a mixed bag as sometimes it was good, but then other times is was just plain goofy. I also wasn't a fan of any of the characters, and I have to blame the writing, especially the writing for character 'Ted.' I didn't like anything he had to say and that's a major problem as he's a main character.

While I didn't like any of the characters, I did however like the 'animals' instead, except The Lorax; the animals didn't speak, but rather their emotions shined. Just like Despicable Me, Illumination Entertainment knows how to create perfect emotions/animations for their background characters that don't involve people. The animals all look cute and adorable, and I found myself looking forward to seeing what the next animal emotion/animation would be. Illumination Entertainment did a great job with the minions in Despicable Me, and while the minions made the movie, at least that film was backed by awesome writing, and very likable characters.

The Lorax looks beautiful with vibrant colors throughout. The animals did a great job with the script, and there are a couple of catchy tunes. Unfortunately, everything else falls flat. Will most young audiences get the messages the film tries to shove down their throats? I'm going to say, no. Will most adults want to watch this more than once? Probably not. Chances are, you're going to watch this movie with your kids, but since there's better family friendly, animated films out there, I have to give Dr Seuss's The Lorax a recommended 'pass.'

HonestMovieReviews

10-13-12, 05:12 PM

Recently watched movie review:
*The Expendables 2 (2012)- 4/5

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgEqVYcryWc (click the link to watch trailer).

The Expendables 2 is a sequel to the 2010 feature film, and I'm happy to say that it's better than the first movie. Like the first film, The Expendables 2 pays tribute to action films of the 1980s and early 1990s, but this time it's not directed by Sylvester Stallone, but rather Simon West, and the shaky camera from the first film is gone, which is a plus.

The group of elite mercenaries are sent out to retrieve an item from a safe in an airplane that was shot down in Albania. Church (Bruce Willis) has Maggie Chan (Yu Nan) join the mercenaries because she's a technical expert, and is able to crack the safe once the team finds it. The mercenaries get ambushed by an arms dealer, Jean Vilain (Jean-Claude Van Damme), who wants the item the team retrieved from the safe. The team surrenders the item, but Jean Vilain kills one of their teammates. The team must retrieve the item from the safe while avenging their fallen comrade's death.

The Expendables 2 has a great cast which includes: Sylvester Stallone, Jason Statham, Jet Li, Dolph Lundgren, Chuck Norris, Bruce Willis, Randy Couture, Terry Crews, Liam Hemsworth, Jean-Claude Van Damme, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and Nan Yu. Unlike the first film, I found that the Expendables 2 shared more camera time with the actors, although Jet Li's camera time got cut into half from the first, and Jet Li fans will be highly disappointed.

This time around, the jokes don't fall flat, the action scenes are better staged, the script is better written, and the plot is more enjoyable. The Expendables 2 isn't a great movie, but it does a better job at capturing a good 80/90's action flick. The action is plenty, the plot is still thin, but I definitely enjoyed this better than the first movie, as did my wife. Overall, if you like action films, you'll be satisfied. If you want to see the movie because of the actors, you'll be more satisfied this time around. The Expendables 2 gets a highly recommended 'rent.'

HonestMovieReviews

10-13-12, 05:14 PM

Recently watched movie review:
*Tommy Boy (1995)- 4.5/5

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-xFypjUqTM (click the link to watch trailer).

Tommy Boy is a classic comedy for 'Chris Farley' fans. Sure, the movie is very stupid, but everything about it seems very sweet and innocent. Tommy (Chris Farley) graduates from college with a D+, and he's proud of it. He goes to visit his dad, Big Tom (Brian Dennehy), who gives him an executive job at Callahan Auto. Big Tom is getting married, and Tommy finds out he's going to have a brother. Well, Big Tom dies at the wedding, and Callahan Auto and its other executives are left with a big decision as the company has no money. Tommy stands up and declares it's his turn to finally step up and sell some brake pads to help keep the company afloat. There's just one problem, he doesn't know how to sell, so he brings along his best friend, Richard (David Spade), who also works at Callahan Auto and knows everything about brake pads. While on the road, Tommy and Richard get into mischief, while finding outsomeoneis trying to sell the Callahan brand to a different company.

If you don't know 'Chris Farley' and his comedy, it's pretty much all physical comedy. Let's not forget about David Spade, he doesn't do physical comedy, but his comedy is more based on one-liners and facial expressions. Tommy Boy is not the best movie you'll see, but if know what you're getting into, than there isn't much to complain about. Critics don't care much for it, but physical comedy audiences who have seen it, mostly love it, and consider it a 'Chris Farley' classic. It's funny, it's stupid, and it stars Chris Farley and David Spade, so what's not to like? Overall, Tommy Boy gets a highly recommended 'rent.'

PS- RIP Chris Farley.

HonestMovieReviews

10-13-12, 05:21 PM

Recently watched movie review:
*ParaNorman (2012)- 4/5

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1RXm81AsNo (click the link to watch trailer).

ParaNorman is a stop-motion comedy thriller from animation company, LAIKA. A boy named Norman Babcock (voiced by Kodi Smit-McPhee) is able to see and speak with the dead. Nobody in town believes that he can see and hear ghosts, and kids make fun of his gift. Norman makes a friend, Neil Downe (voiced by Tucker Albrizzi), who believes Norman can see and speak with ghosts. The two boys are confronted by Norman's Uncle, Mr. Prenderghast (voiced by John Goodman), who tells Norman that he must be the one who has to save the town from the witch by reading a book at the witches grave.

ParaNorman has a very unique look throughout the film, and when you finally see those zombies, you may not be scared at all by them. Human characters look oddly shaped and just plain weird, which makes the zombies seem less scary, which I'm fine with as kids may not be so scared of them when they finally see them. The dialogue is very well written and both kids and adults will be pleased, although, ParaNorman is not a movie that I would take my child to go see. There are many stereotypes portrayed throughout the film, and the script is geared a little bit more toward adult humor. ParaNorman doesn't have the best storyline, but that's okay as I was just waiting for the next great dialogue line.

The visuals are wonderful, the dialogue is fantastic, but there's something lacking in the film that makes me want to watch this another time; overall it's the poor storyline. Most kids and adults will like ParaNorman, but in my opinion, adults should be aware that it's a more adult oriented movie. I saw ParaNorman in 2D, and since it's already a dark movie with not much noticeable 3D parts, I would suggest sticking with 2D. I can't recommend ParaNorman enough; it's a good film that deserves a highly recommended 'rent.'

TheUsualSuspect

10-13-12, 06:14 PM

I agree with you on The Lorax. A very juvenile film.

HonestMovieReviews

10-14-12, 07:41 PM

Recently watched movie review:
*Friends With Kids (2012)- 3/5

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lj_q8hU99J4 (click the link to watch trailer).

Friends With Kids is written, produced, acted, and directed by Jennifer Westfeldt. Her partner, Jon Hamm, stars in the movie alongside with Adam Scott, Megan Fox, Chris O'Dowd, Maya Rudolph, Edward Burns, and Kristen Wigg. Friends With Kids is a romantic comedy film.

Jason (Adam Scott) and Julie (Jennifer Westfeldt) are best friends who live in Manhattan and they are close friends with two childless couples. Four years later, their friends have kids, and have marriages that are suffering. After a bad birthday party, Jason and Julie decide to experiment by having a child, while they each date other people.

Friends With Kids is funny, likeable, and the screenplay is sharp. The cast is great with good performances and smart dialogue. Unfortunately, the film felt a little long (107 minutes) and it was far too predictable. I had fun with it, but I don't think I could watch it again as there are better romantic comedies out there. Friends With Kids gets a recommended 'rent.'

HonestMovieReviews

10-14-12, 07:43 PM

Recently watched movie review:
*The Expendables (2010)- 2/5

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6RU5y2fU6s (click the link to watch trailer).

The Expendables is an action movie filled with action movie icons. It is written by David Callaham and Sylvester Stallone, and it's directed by Sylvester Stallone. The Expendables stars Jason Statham, Terry Crews, Dolph Lundgren, Jet Li, Mickey Rourke, Bruce Willis, Randy Couture, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Steve Austin, and Sylvester Stallone. The film pays tribute to action films of the 1980s and early 1990s.

The Expendables is about a group of elite mercenaries who take on a mission to overthrow South American dictator, General Gaza (David Zayas), and restore order to the troubled island country of Vilena. The group finds out that their target is not General Gaza, but it's James Monroe (Eric Roberts), a former CIA operative who has gone rogue. It's up to Stallone and his old crewmates to get the job done.

The Expendables has some fun action scenes, the shootouts are epic, and the dead body count is high. So, what's not to like? Everything else, that's what; the jokes fall flat, the acting is average, the camera is a shaky mess, and you'll find yourself not caring about the stale story. The camera time for most of these actors is not equal, and some viewers may be let down when they find that their favorite star doesn't do, or say anything at all.

The Expendables should have been a great film with all of the talented actors, but it falls flat in many regards. I've seen this movie for a total of 2 times, and both times felt like a chore. I asked my wife to watch it the 2nd time, and she turned me down; she had no interest in watching it again, and she likes these kinds of movies. Sure, the film pays tribute to action films of the 1980s and early 1990s, and I consider a lot of those movies to be classics, but The Expendables doesn't come close to being a classic. The Expendables is not entertaining enough for me, or my wife, and I can't give the film anything more than a mild recommended 'rent.'

HonestMovieReviews

10-15-12, 08:51 PM

Recently watched movie review:
*The Five-Year Engagement (2012)- 2/5

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kuDpU1vzekE (click the link to watch trailer).

The Five-Year Engagement is a romantic comedy that Nicholas Stoller produced, wrote (with the help of Jason Segal), and directed; It stars Jason Segal and Emily Blunt. Tom Solomon (Jason Segal) and Violet Barnes (Emily Blunt) are a happy couple who live in San Francisco. Tom and Violet are trying to plan a wedding, but before plans are final, Violet gets accepted into a psychology program at the University of Michigan. Tom, who is a chef at a fancy restaurant, isn't pleased when he finds out there are no fancy restaurants for him to work at in Michigan. Years pass, and Violet finds out the psychology program is going to last longer than expected, so wedding plans will have to wait a little bit longer, and when Tom finds out, he gets so disillusioned with his life.

Jason Segal and Emily Blunt work well together, and are a likeable pair, with a warm-like chemistry. The writing is funny and smart, but then there are times when it's not. There are times where you'll laugh, won't laugh, and don't know if you should laugh; the movie tries so hard to be funny when most of it is just awkward instead. The supporting cast of Tom's best friend Alex (Chris Pratt) and Violet's sister Suzie (Alison Brie) do an awesome job, many times stealing the show. There's a lot of uniqueness put into the film in terms of props and costumes, and I couldn't wait to see what other unique things were going to show up.

The Five-Year Engagement feels like a long waiting game; at 124 minutes, you'll find yourself ready for the film to be over with. The film doesn't do a good job in explaining what's stopping Tom and Violet from getting married, which causes the main story to be rather uninteresting and feel sloppy. I was more interested in hearing what the next joke was going to be, and what the next new unique thing was going be, rather than caring if they were ever going to get married. For a movie that's not about sports, I couldn't help but constantly feel overwhelmed with product placements; I felt like I was watching commercials for the University of Michigan, the movie Ratatouille, Michigan restaurants, and some classic metal bands, thus resulting in getting a thumbs down. If you want to laugh a few times, but feel bored at the same time, I'm going to mildly recommend a 'rent.' Otherwise, it gets a 'pass.'

HonestMovieReviews

10-19-12, 02:07 PM

Recently watched movie review:
*The Amazing Spider-Man (2012)- 4.5/5

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atCfTRMyjGU (click the link to watch trailer).

The Amazing Spider-Man is a remake of Spider-Man that came out in 2002. I hardly remember the 2002 version, so I really can't compare the two movies, so I reviewed The Amazing Spider-Man on its own terms. I didn't want to see it, but I felt very satisfied afterward.

The Amazing Spider-Man opens up with a young boy named Peter Parker who discovers that someone broke into his parents' house to steal important documents. His parents' drop Peter off at his Aunt May and Uncle Ben's house to live there for a while. Years later, Peter Parker, who's played by 'Andrew Garfield', is in high school and is a victim of bullying. Standing up to the bully, he meets Gwen Stacy, who's played by 'Emma Stone'.

Peter finds his dads' secret papers and learns that his father worked with Scientist, Dr. Curt Connors, who's played by 'Rhys Ifans'. Peter finds out where Dr. Curt Connors works at, meets up with Gwen, and he sneaks into a lab where a biocable is being created from genetically modified spiders. Peter touches something in the lab that he shouldn't have touched and one of the modified spiders bites him. Peter now has spider-like abilities and then uses his new abilities to hunt criminals, while a giant lizard is on the loose.

The Amazing Spider-Man does a lot of things right and only a few things wrong. For starters, it has a good cast, lots of detail in the plot, and just the right amount of action. Sure, The Amazing Spider-Man revisits many of the same plot points from the 2002 version, but the movie is done well enough that most viewers won't care about the same plot points. The movie takes about an hour before any action really happens; it seems many superhero movies have far too much CGI and not enough story and character development, so I like that the movie took its time.

The Amazing Spider-Man has its moments of cheesy dialog, but I expected it to happen and forgave most of the 'rolling eyeball' lines. I don't want to give away too much, but there is plot in the movie where Spider-Man is looking for a certain criminal. The film spends roughly about 15 minutes where this is happening and after 15 minutes, nothing is to show for wasting my time. This irked me, thus resulting in a non-perfect movie score. If you have any interest in seeing the reboot version, I highly recommend that you give The Amazing Spider-Man a 'rent.'

The Rodent

10-19-12, 02:15 PM

Thanks for the reviews matey. I rated Expendables a bit higher but I'm liking your review style so far. :up:

HonestMovieReviews

10-19-12, 02:16 PM

Recently watched movie review:
*Basic (2003)- 3/5

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5TBBhkzGktQ (click the link to watch trailer).

Sergeant Nathan West (Samuel L. Jackson) and his team of army ranger trainees are engaged in a training exercise. The team must navigate through the jungle in hurricane conditions. They are to use live fire to hit targets and then rendezvous us to a bunker. Problem is, not all of the army rangers meet at the bunker and it turns out Nathan West is dead. Someone on the team killed Nathan and now the team must find out who killed him while staying alive themselves. Since only a couple of members from the team are alive, Colonel Bill Styles calls an experienced interrogator, Tom Hardy (John Travolta) who's an ex-ranger, to interrogate Dunbar and Kendall (the only 2 men alive) with Captain Julia Osborne (Connie Nielsen) by his side. Both Dunbar and Kendall have different stories as to what happened. Is Dunbar lying? Is it Kendall who's lying? Or, is neither story correct?

The performances are solid and the film is engaging and fun to watch. The film keeps you guessing, and when you think you have the answer, you find yourself not even close to the answer. You're going to be misled and manipulated throughout the whole film, but for me it worked. The characters were interesting enough for me to care about, and it's hard not to like John Travolta.

Basic has many plot twists and turns, and for some people, that's a turnoff. There's no doubt, this is a pretty good popcorn flick, but it may not be for everyone. Some people will stop caring and some will feel very cheated at the end; I'm not one of those people and I like to watch Basic once in a blue moon. I give Basic a recommended 'rent.'

HonestMovieReviews

10-19-12, 02:17 PM

Thanks for the reviews matey. I rated Expendables a bit higher but I'm liking your review style so far. :up:
Thanks for the kind words. I haven't had much time lately, but I'll make sure I take some time to read your reviews.

:)

HonestMovieReviews

10-20-12, 10:19 AM

Recently watched movie review:
*Inkheart (2008)- 2.5/5

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4KFDqhOByA (click the link to watch trailer).

Inkheart is a fantasy/family film and it is based on the novel of the same name by Cornelia Funke. Mortimer Folchart (Brendan Fraser) doesn't know it yet, but he possesses storytelling skills which gives him the power to transport the book characters into the real world. One night when Mortimer reads a bedtime story (Inkheart) to his baby daughter Meggie (Eliza Bennett), a character pops out from the book, and when someone comes out of the book, someone from the real world must go back in to take that characters spot. His wife, Resa (Sienna Guillory) is the 'someone' who gets transported to the book world and it's now up to Mortimer, his 'now' 12-year-old daughter, and book characters to find a copy of 'Inkheart' to bring Resa back to the real world.

The premise of Inkheart should be rewarding to the viewer, but it's not, it's actually a disappointment. There's no momentum, the climax is lame, and the film feels limited to what it can do when in fact it could have been so much more. There's a nice 'Wizard of Oz' element that's incorporated into the film, but that just left me wanting more characters and themes from other novels. Inkheart has a quality cast, and it shows. Kids will mildly like it and adults will tolerate it, but one can't help but feel disappointed after watching it. Inkheart gets a mild recommended 'rent.'

HonestMovieReviews

10-26-12, 12:31 AM

Recently watched movie review:
*The Hills Have Eyes (2006)- 3.5/5

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O76m3kpgPTQ (click the link to watch trailer).

The Hills Have Eyes 2006 version is a remake of the 1977 version which was directed by Wes Craven (which I never saw) and now it's Alexandre Aja's turn to direct the film. A family is taking a road trip in the desert when their trailer breaks down, leaving them stranded in the desert, and they aren't alone. The murderous 'hill people' are out in the desert and they were deformed by radiation during nuclear testing.

As I mentioned above, I didn't see Wes Cravens version (1977), so I can't compare the differences, but overall I like Aja's version. There's plenty of gore and extreme violence for horror fans, and the family is engaging enough for you to care about them. The acting is done well, but some of the writing could have used some fine-tuning. The film has intense moments not seen in many horror films and they can be quite gross.

My main complaint for The Hills Have Eyes is the last 45 minutes of the movie. While it shows more gore than the first hour, it ends up losing its charm. The characters are less engaging, there's less dialog, and every time I watch it, I always lose interest and don't care if I finish the movie. What worked for me in the first hour of the film is gone, and the movie never gets back on track to what made it enjoyable. I really enjoy watching the 1st half, so I'm going to give The Hills Have Eyes a recommended 'rent,' and hopefully you'll like the 2nd half more than I do.

cinemaafficionado

10-26-12, 04:55 AM

HonestMovieReviews

11-18-12, 08:47 PM

Recently watched movie review:
*Skyfall (2012)- 5/5

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kw1UVovByw (click the link to watch trailer).

Skyfall is the 23rd spy film in the James Bond Series and also celebrates its 50th year as a series. It stars 'Daniel Craig' for the 3rd time as James Bond, also known as 007, and 'Javier Bardem' as Raoul Silva, as the new villain for the series. The film was directed by Sam Mendes and written by Neal Purvis, John Logan, and Robert Wade.

An unknown terrorist blows up MI6 headquarters and is revealing the names of undercover operatives. James Bond must track down and destroy the threat, while 'M' (Judi Dench), who's' the Head of Secret Intelligence Service (MI6), comes under political pressure to retire. Skyfall is the 3rd movie I've seen in the series along with one that stared 'Pierce Brosnan' as James Bond and Casino Royale that also starred 'Daniel Craig.'

Since I've only seen 3 bond movies (2 with the same actor), I can't compare who's the better bond, and since I haven't read the books, I don't even know what to expect from 'Bond.' I mentioned that I saw a James Bond movie that starred 'Pierce Brosnan', but I don't remember that movie at all. I reviewed Skyfall by comparing it to Casino Royale as well as its own film.

From the very beginning I feared that my same complaint with Casino Royale would happen again in Skyfall; a 15-20 minute chase without anything really being explained, but alas, more explaining was done in Skyfall thus making this 15-20 minute chase actually enjoyable. After the chase, the opening credits roll with 'Adele' singing her new hit 'Skyfall,' and while the credits were rolling, I knew that this movie was going to have some tremendous value.

Skyfall is visually stunning from the landmarks to the special effects. The movie is filled with talent, and 'Javier Bardem' does an awesome job as the sadistic lunatic. The action sequences are expertly done and the closing scene is close to being perfect if the series were to end today. The fight scenes are easy to follow and the cinematography is outstanding. Compared to Casino Royale, Skyfall seemed to have less action and more narrative, which I found satisfying. I wasn't pumped to go see Skyfall as I'm clearly not a James Bond fanboy, but after seeing it once, I'm pumped to see it again. Skyfall gets a highly recommended 'rent.'