Re: John's Reviews
 

Well it was exciting and fun but hey....all things do 'Die Hard'

Re: John's Reviews
 

Thanks for your review Johnny :) I will give it a miss at the movies, I will wait for it to come out on DVD :yup:

Re: John's Reviews
 

“If the sun dies, so do we.”

Rank:

Rating:

Director: Danny Boyle

Release Date: July 20, 2007

Cast: Cliff Curtis, Cillian Murphy, Michelle Yeoh, Hiroyuki Sanada, Rose Byrne, Benedict Wong, Chris Evans, Troy Garity

Every now and then, a film slips into theaters with little regard to charm and delight it's audience; Sunshine is, indeed, one of those films.

In the near future, Earth's closest star and source of energy is dieing. Without this vital organ, the Solar System cannot survive; it is a slowly clotting heart. In hopes of saving themselves, mankind sends a ship, the Icarus I, attached to a stellar bomb to try and create a new star inside of the current one. In the face of tremendous odds, this first mission fails unexplainable. So what does mankind do? They try again with the Icarus II. On a ship with a doomed name, there lies the entire hope of mankind and their last chance at survival. Sunshine picks up here, and tells their story.

Simply put, this movie is stunning. From opening to finish, I found myself repeating the typical "aspirations" that a sci-fi film can induce. The CGI is breath taking and the story delivers tremendously on the deep space travel premise. Sunshine raises several questions throughout the film, most of which they leave for the viewer to decide for themselves. Is it man's place to question their demise? Should logic define all our decisions? Where is the edge of the cliff during deep space travel? These are just some of the questions posed to the audience, and they entirely left up to you to answer/discuss.

The cast is made up of some well known faces, but no one really takes the spotlight and this just enhances the film. The bonds between the characters are tried and tested, putting you through an ocean of emotion and terror. The sheer beauty and brilliance of the CGI is just overwhelming; so powerful, in fact, you can lose yourself in it. The sci-fi/deep space genre has not had a film of this quality for a long while, and I'm glad to see the cinema can still capture our imagination and retinas with films that involve the extreme dangers of space.

Re: John's Reviews
 

Sunshine is not a low budget flick. The thing cost over $40 million to produce.

It would certainly be fair to call it a completely under-the-radar flick. Unless you've been anticipating it for a while, chances are you're not even going to have a clue it exists. Case and point the dozen or so people at work who said, "Sunshine?"

Low budget though...not even close.

Re: John's Reviews
 

Woah, bad source on my part. Sorry, folks. :D

Re: John's Reviews
 

Nice review, Sunshine is my favourite Danny Boyle film yet and it's criminally underrated. Saw it three times at the cinema here in the UK before they stopped showing it and enjoyed it more each time. I can't believe it's not been more popular, a lot of my mates haven't even heard of it (but the ones that I took to saw it loved it)

Gripping, thought-provoking and breathtaking.

Re: John's Reviews
 

Great review Johnny, i love SiFi so will see this when it gets here :yup:

Re: John's Reviews
 

Rank:

Rating:

Director: Ang Lee

Release Date: November 5th, 2007

Cast: Tony Leung, Wei Tang, Joan Chen and Lee-Hom Wang

Lust, Caution is an intense erotic espionage thriller that takes place over a span of 4 years, and it hooks its viewers and doesn’t let go until the dramatic conclusion.

The film starts off in occupied Shanghai during the year 1942 and Wang Jiazhi (Wei Tang), a beautiful and confident woman, enters a café where she ultimately begins reflecting on the past. We are then thrown 4 years into the past where we discover Wang Jiazhi is a shy and innocent girl at a small university. From here we watch the past unravel and witness Wang Jizahi transform before our very eyes into a dangerous mistress whose very life and heart are placed in grave threat in the lion’s den.

This movie is as much raw and passionate as it is thrilling and suspenseful. So raw, in fact, that it was given a NC-17 rating for several explicit sex scenes. Not only are these scenes breathtaking, but the moments leading up to them are pure genius; the film, at its core, is essentially one large sexual encounter. One moment you’re being enticed with the back and forth between Wang Jiazhi and her target, Mr. Yee (Tony Leung), and then you’re thrown straight into a steamy sex scene between the two. It’s absolutely brilliant and mind boggling.

The acting from new comer Wei Tang can only bring one word to mind: spectacular. Her abilities are stunning and they show in the film’s most powerful scenes. She and Tony Leung both deliver admirably and compliment each other wonderfully. Toss in Ang Lee’s developed directing skills and you have the formula for an excellent flick.

Lee is best known for Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon and Brokeback Mountain; the latter was highly controversial and Lust, Caution is sure to stir up controversy for itself. Lee even went on record saying it wasn’t a film for the American market, and while he might be right to some degree this film is a must see as it is one of the best movies of the year. Passion, betrayal, heartbreak; they all tie together to make this the best movie of the year, in my opinion.

Even though I highly recommend everyone see Lust, Caution, it is most definitely too explicit for some viewers; hence the NC-17 rating. Do not take the rating lightly, or you will be shocked. With that said, this film is sure to enter the books as an excellent crafted piece of art to be viewed and studied for many years to come. And if you’re looking for a spine tingling masterpiece, this movie will surely please those with even the hungriest of cravings.

Re: John's Reviews
 

Great review John, Thanks :)

Re: John's Reviews
 

I am definitely looking forward to Lust, Caution. Ang Lee is a very interesting director, everything he does is different from his last film.

Re: John's Reviews
 

Yea, I can't wait to pick it up on DVD. It was only in theaters here for a short while and I didn't get a second chance to see it.

Re: John's Reviews
 

http://img230.imageshack.us/img230/9...tpeopleyo9.jpg
Smart People -

There is only one thing more interesting than stupid people, and that's Smart People.

Smart People is a delightful film that's funny, heart warming and lovely. It will most likely not receive a grand swarm of audiences around the country this weekend, and however sad that might be, at least the small percentage of viewers that do decide to see it will be in for a real treat. The film does have some weak points, but overall the entire experience is quite enjoyable.

In short, Smart People follows the life of a widowed, pretentious college professor that has little desire to mingle with his students, or attempt to understand his children. It takes an ER doctor and his adoptive brother, who's free from the intelligent gene of the family, to bring some change to the entire family. The rest of the film follows along this line and it generally suffers from predictability. However, in spite of the weak script, the actors manage to turn the film around and combat the clichés with excellent character growth.

Dennis Quaid does a magnificent job assuming the role of Lawrence Wetherhold, the college professor. In fact, I believe this work to be one of his greatest roles. It throws him outside of his typical acting area and he does a magnificent job, but he's not the only one to stand out.

Ellen Page, the intelligent daughter, and Thomas Hayden Church, the whimsical and adoptive brother, give equally strong roles that provide even more depth to the shallow script. Church's character shines through as the funniest part of the film, and it's probably because he's given a majority of the best lines. Fans of Church will be delighted with his part in this story, and they should not miss it.

Besides the weak script and a rather abrupt ending, this is an overall decent film. If you can just look past the script and focus on the characters you'll be sure to find Smart People very enjoyable.

Re: John's Reviews
 

http://img216.imageshack.us/img216/7...strikepsf7.jpg
Jackie Chan's First Strike -

Jackie Chan's First Strike, also know as Police Story 4: First Strike, is a typical action film of Jackie's. With the exception of a few of his earlier films, his work mostly consists of predictable action and high octane fun. Take the film for what it is, a showcase of top notch stunt work, and you'll enjoy the hell out of it. If you're expecting something more you will be sadly disappointed.

In First Strike, Jackie is a Hong Kong police officer that catches the attention of foreign law enforcement agencies; the CIA and new KGB. After doing so he's sent on a relatively simple assignment, or so it seems. As usual, he finds himself in a situation that requires a hero.

I am a huge fan of Jackie's work and highly recommend that people make an attempt to see at least one of his films. While they clearly lack character development and plots, the original art form of Jackie's stunts are the real gold in his movies. His character generally doesn't use guns. Instead, he uses household items and other articles to incapacitate, not kill, his enemies. Full of action and danger, but lacking in plot, his movies are an acquired taste.

If you're looking for a fun film, Jackie Chan's First Strike is sure to meet the bill. Don't take it too seriously or you'll miss Jackie's daring stunts. Just sit back, relax, and have a good laugh at how crazy the man can get.

Re: John's Reviews
 

So are there some reviews missing? Or did you just delete a few? Or are they somewhere else, like in the movie tab or something?

Re: John's Reviews
 

Nope, all my reviews are in this thread.

And no, I haven't seen the unrated version of Live Free or Die Hard. I saw the piece of crap once more than needed, and I've done everything possible to forgot it. :D

As for King Arthur, it's been awhile since I've seen it a second time, and it was the unrated version. It was alright; .

Re: John's Reviews
 

Okey Dokey Smokey! :) I thought I saw a few references to a couple of other flicks that you were going to review, you must of just not gotten around to them. Nice job overall! Keep them coming.

Re: John's Reviews
 

HOLY BEJEBUS!?!!! did Holden make a spelling error!? I can die now...

Re: John's Reviews
 

http://img65.imageshack.us/img65/5449/29rat6001oq6.jpg
Ratatouille -

What can one expect from a Pixar film? I can answer that question with one word; excellence. Ratatouille is no exception to this rule and is definitely a return to their best work, such as the smashing hit Finding Nemo and Toy Story.

Ratatouille is about, you guessed it, the life of a rat named Remy. However, this rat is special because he has the extraordinary ability of superb cooking. We see him struggle to be accepted by his fellow rats, team up with a human to hold a cooking position, and eventually befriend this unlikely partner in food named Linguini.

First off, the voice acting is always top notch in Pixar films, and this comes partnered with a graphical superiority we undoubtedly expect. Both are staples of this company's talent, and this film doesn't let down on either. Secondly, the story is one their finest works and easily takes, at least, its place in the top 3 Pixar films; the film is easily accessible for anyone and everyone. Lastly, the film and its characters stick with you leaving an emotional connection for, at the shortest period, a week. A rare feat for many film makers, yet a breeze for Pixar.

In short, you must see Ratatouille. If you've seen any other Pixar film, and enjoyed it, then watching this flick is the next logical step for cinema pleasure. Fun for the whole family, or just yourself; this movie will not disappoint.

Re: John's Reviews
 

I have it here :yup: I have lost count how many times me and the 4yr old have watched it, it is our favourite at the moment :yup:

Re: John's Reviews
 

I cringe whenever I read the first page of this thread. Seriously, my back seizes up and I can't move. :D

Re: John's Reviews
 

The Fountain -

"Therefor, the Lord God banished Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden and placed a flaming sword to protect the tree of life." - Genesis 3:24

Words cannot express how much I adore The Fountain. Even so, my wish is to try and share my thoughts on this film because it truly is one of the most underrated films in cinema. It left theaters in the red and that is an atrocity. The cast poured their hearts and souls into this film, yet it's met with mundane reviews from simple minded viewers and poor box office numbers.

First off, I want to stress the importance of Jackman's performance in this film; it is nothing short of brilliant. It tops anything, and everything, he has done before it. I'm so impressed by it that if I ever meet the man, that is the only thing I will praise him on. This role deserves more recognition than anything else he's done, or will ever do. I cannot even begin to put this man's talent into words; it just needs to be seen.

The story follows three perspectives that weave together to form one tale -- acceptance. A 16th century conquistador, present day scientist, and future astronaut are all connected. However, the scientist is the part that drives the majority of the story. Tommy, the scientist, is fighting to find a cure for the love of his life -- Izzie. She's dying from brain cancer and Tommy's field of research is the reversal of brain tumors.

Rachel Weisz is an excellent choice for the vulnerable Izzie. This is one of her best performances, if not her best, but it is definitely overshadowed by Jackman. He manages to steal ever scene from her, but it doesn't take away from the film one bit. If you pay close attention to her acting you will easily see the brilliance I'm talking about. To be honest, I can't think of a single role of hers that doesn't top this one. It's raw, emotional, and powerful.

The visual effects are, hands down, out of this world; they are simply awe inspiring. However, the most stunning fact is the space scenes are not CGI; they're bacteria slides. This allows the film to hold up well in the years to come. They are some of the most beautiful and gripping space scenes -- ever. They will easily stand the test of time, and this film should be applauded for that fact.

Aronofsky has out done himself with this film. I don't know if it will ever be possible for him to top this piece of art, but I will definitely keep an eye out for his newer works. The Fountain will always be recognized as a stunning achievement by myself, and I will never pass up an opportunity to share it with others.

Re: John's Reviews
 

I agree with you 100%. I think the reason why it wasn't hot at the box office is because the critics were not smart enough to link the three tales together.

Re: John's Reviews
 

I think the best way to sum up why the critics didn't like it is because they couldn't sum it up in one sentence like, "Die Hard on a boat!!" or "Mobsters in space kicking alien arse!!" ;)

Re: John's Reviews
 

Well, maybe some critics and objective viewers actually thought the sucka was boring and pretentious. Are you saying that that's impossible? I had already watched it once and was thoroughly unimpressed, but I knew, for a fact, that my Bro, a published writer, would love it for thematic and visual reasons. I was completely correct. As far as I'm concerned, I liked it a little bit better upon second viewing, but I still thought it was a Mess. I have to admit though, that I'm a Major Weirdo because I watch movies I don't even like multiple times, depending on how significant I find them. I find The Fountain significant but not good. Sorry!

Re: John's Reviews
 

I really don't quite see how you could call it a "mess." If you're referring to the jumping of the story, then I would have to disagree. IMO, that only adds to story of a guy that just can't let go. His mind is jumping all over the place...."how do I save my wife? What if she dies? How do I live without her?" All this, and more, is represented by the constant shifting of the story/setting. I posted a length post in another thread about the entire film explaining how I saw it, and the above statement goes with my hypothesis on the film. It's all about one guy that just doesn't know how to let go...he's being torn apart by grief. I seriously can't find anything about this film I don't like and I find it even more brilliant the more I see it.

Re: John's Reviews
 

Trust me, I know what it's about. I also know what Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind is about. If "what it is about" falls short of "what it's supposed to be about", then I find problems with a movie. My argument is that there is no reason why your interpretation of the film is better than mine. I can enjoy a movie I find severely flawed through its "underdeveloped overreaching" as much as anybody can love a "perfect movie", and there is certainly a possiblity that we can both be correct about the same movie and "seem" to be 180 degrees apart. Happy New Year, Bro! My wife's birthday is tomorrow! :)

Re: John's Reviews
 

Well, I still have to, respectfully, disagree on the grounds that you didn't write or direct the movie, so what do you know about "what it's supposed to be about?" Ever stopped to think that "what it is about" is the same thing as "what it's supposed to be about?" All the interviews I read from the director/writer and cast are what made me come up with my interpretation of the film. Anywho, it's a free world, mostly, so you can think anything ya want! :)

Re: John's Reviews
 

So you digested the idea that the film was supposed to have a 3-4 times larger budget than it did, and it was supposed to be far more complex, much longer and that the visuals had to be fudged due to lack of money? And it's perfect the way it is? "Ever stopped to think..."? Like I said, I have no problems with anybody loving anything.

Re: John's Reviews
 

Actually, just to set some things straight about The Fountain, I'm going to fill you in on some information.

To begin with, this film was originally approved to be shot with Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett at a tune of about $70 million dollars. Sets were built, storyboards were written, etc. However, Pitt had creativity differences and left the film for Troy back in 2004. When he left, Warner scrapped the project and sold all the sets. This original production was going to be using CGI, of course.

Now, Darren Aronofsky was *determined* to have this story told, so he teamed up with Kent Williams and released it as a graphic novel in 2005. I quote the director, "I knew it was a hard film to make and I said at least if Hollywood f***s me over at least I'll make a comic book out of it."

Mind you, he still wanted to shoot this flick, so he pitched the film to Warner again for the much smaller sum of $35 million dollars. First thing that had to go was the CGI, of course. Also, Aronofsky wanted the visuals to stand the test of time (much like 2001 and Star Wars). Highly detailed models, or in this case bacteria slides, will always age better than CGI. So this was an excellent move because it met the director's wish and bought the film in way under the original budget.

Now mind you, the graphic novel was the first script from the original production. I have a copy of it and it is just as brilliant as this film. Also, the second script/production is very close to the original one with only very minor details changed.

The visuals were not "fudged," they were improved (I would take these visuals over CGI everyday of the week). The story was not supposed to be more complex or longer because the only major differences in the two productions were the cast and visuals (read the graphic novel if you don't believe me). As you can see by the numbers I posted, the budget was only supposed to be twice the amount.

And in spite of all...no, because of these changes/obstacles the film ended up being perfect. I'm not expecting you, or asking you, to like the film. I am merely arguing that the film is exactly what it was supposed to be, and *that* is just one of the many reasons why I love this film. :)

Re: John's Reviews
 

Gross

Re: John's Reviews
 

That just made my night. Thank you.

And let's remember. The original film pitch with Brad Pitt was totally different. Aronofsky re-wrote it all for the second pitch.

Re: John's Reviews
 

Oh haha....damn keyboard!

Re: John's Reviews
 

Like I said, go out and read the graphic novel if you honestly believe that one because it was not the case.

Re: John's Reviews
 

X-Men Origins: Wolverine -

X-Men Origins: Wolverine is the first of many future spin-off films from the original X-Men trilogy. The success of the first three showed that there is an obvious market for future works. Of course, this success does not equate quality, and this film is sorely lacking in the latter.

Origins: Wolverine tells the back story of the acclaimed character Wolverine, which includes the discovery of his powers and his involvement in Weapon X, a government anti-mutant project. While it would make sense to assume this picture would be an analysis of the character in question, the resulting assumption will lead viewers to a quick and horrid let down. Although my knowledge of Wolverine’s true origins are confined to what I’ve read on the Internet, it is quickly obvious that the writer’s of this film were not concerned with giving depth and development to Wolverine’s past. Instead, they took the only other route and created an action packed blockbuster that explores Wolverine’s involvement in Weapon X.

The quality of this film can be summed up in one word; subpar. The script writing is nothing short of silly, and some of the lines will bring laughter at just how bad they are. Don’t be surprised if you find yourself rolling your eyes more than once during the film, as there are a few occasions where it’s warranted. However, this doesn’t mean the film is a total loss.

Action, which is quite plentiful, is the only thing holding Origins: Wolverine together. It’s both placed and paced well, but doesn’t border on the line of too jammed to the point of dulling its enjoyment. My biggest complaint was the sad excuses made by the script writers to give some sort of meaningful story to the film, as all the attempts fall flat on their face. Instead, the film’s action helps fit the bill for a mindless entertainment experience and it does deliver.

Cameo appearances are also abundant throughout the entirety of the film and this bodes well for fans of the comics and future works in the X-Men universe, but diehard fans will undoubtedly be left with a bad taste in their mouth. Origins: Wolverine is an excellent kickoff for the big summer ahead, and it fits the bill and definition of a typical blockbuster. The story might be lacking, but the stunts and special effects pick up the slack and delivers entertainment nonetheless. The best recommendation I can give for casual fans of comics, or the X-Men universe, is to expect a typical summer flick that relies on tightly shot and packed action. And for you diehard fans…expect to be disappointed.

Re: John's Reviews
 

Crap. Why can't the superhero's I love the most get the Ironman/TDK treatment. Great movies but not even in my top ten favorite hero's list. So far all of my beloved superhero's films have been pretty mediocre to downright terrible. *sigh*

Thanks McClane.

Re: John's Reviews
 

I know exactly how you feel. Wolverine is one of my all-time favorite superhero's, tied for favorite with Batman. I was really disappointed to have the writers give such carelessness to Wolverine. Fun, but a huge letdown. I was not surprised at how mundane the film was, though.

Re: John's Reviews
 

My review pretty much has the same points as yours. The film is decent, but could have been so much more.

Re: John's Reviews
 

Re: John's Reviews
 

Thanks John :yup:

https://images2.imgbox.com/7b/aa/kIGYtgtE_o.jpeg
The Road -

The Road is a grueling, post-apocalyptic story about a man and his son merely trying to survive. It’s bleak, daunting, and the most emotionally charged film of the year. Combine all of these traits together and you achieve one thing: brilliance.

After an unexplained cataclysmic event changes the face of the Earth, a man and his son embark on an epic journey towards the coast in hopes of survival. We never learn their names but it’s an unnecessary thing. This is unlike any other post-apocalyptic tale; there are no fiery action scenes of destruction, only character driven scenes about the need to continue the human spirit—to “carry the fire inside.”

I have not read the book by Cormac McCarthy that the film is based upon, so I cannot speak as to how the original material is handled (I’ve heard that it is faithful to the book). I can tell you, however, that this film is perfect in its own regard. The bleakness is overwhelming at times but the love between father and son is unmistakable and touching.

Viggo Mortensen has already proven more than once (A History of Violence, Eastern Promises) that his acting skills are outstanding. His performance in The Road as the father tops anything he’s done before and for good reason. Every twist in their journey brings about another scene where Mortensen’s talent pushes the limit, and he delivers every time.

Kodi Smit-McPhee plays opposite of Mortensen and the connection between the two rivals that of real life father and son relationships, thanks to Smit-McPhee’s acting and the chemistry between him and Mortensen. He is truly a hidden gem in this year’s new releases. Numerous scenes brought me to tears seeing the two struggle during their journey. Fear and love are constantly written all over their faces.

Numerous parts of this movie stand out above the rest. One of my favorite aspects is the innocence of Smit-McPhee’s character in a guilty world. Small things, such as his ignorance of Coke, only add more depth to his character and the atmosphere of the world. The way his character carries the constant belief in the goodness of people in a world gone mad is just one of several personalities the film contains, as a wide array of responses to the end of humanity are showcased in The Road.

The cinematography in The Road is also another favorite of mine. The future is shot in dismal dark and gray, while the film’s pre-apocalypse flash backs are bright and colorful. The decision to film this way shows how much the world has changed. It’s as if all the color has drained from the face of the world.

One thing is certain, this film is a worthy Oscar contender for both Best Actor and Best Picture. While I would very much like to see Mortensen take the award for best actor, I would be equally satisfied to see Smit-McPhee win. The work of both these actors easily tops that of everything else from this past year. I honestly think Mortensen’s Oscar has been long overdue and there is no doubt in my mind that this film is his finest work.

As I’ve said more than once, this film is bleak. It’s actually downright depressing, but that does nothing to take away from its brilliance. I only wish to make that fact clear for possible viewers. It’s not an action film, as the trailer would make it out to be, and the few scenes of violence are depicted true to life—quick and messy.

As disheartening as The Road may be, it’s the must see film of the year. Very rarely do we get to experience stories of this caliber or performances so fraught with emotions. With that in mind, do everything in your power to see this film, regardless of the toll it may take on you.

Re: John's Reviews
 

Wow, thanks McClane. Sure looks good. Can't wait to see it.

Re: John's Reviews
 

Nice review John :yup:

Re: John's Reviews
 

Nice reviews mate, really looking forward to seeing The Road, heard very promising things about it

Re: John's Reviews
 

I finished reading the novel a few weeks ago, so I can now speak about the adaption and it is faithful to the book.

Re: John's Reviews
 

Hi John, I'm pretty new here so you won't know me.

I just read your review on The Road, can I just ask for your detailed opinion on the plot?
I personally found it to be the only weak part of the film. The plot was there but it seemed as though it had no depth to it. Their were minor 'twists' but the overall plot was still very basic. I have no real problem with simple plots but I felt as though it could have been improved. [I would explain a little more but I don't want to create spoilers.]

Anyway I look forward to your reply.

http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/9277/66995ori.jpg

Predators-

Predators did not know what it wanted to hunt but killed well anyways. Its prey is the same as any other action film...script, acting and pacing. It was not as lethal as the first two Predator films, but there was plenty of violent mauling.

Predators took a different direction on one of the most dangerous creatures in cinema; rather than throwing the Hunter into one of Earth's countless jungles, whether it is the real one or that of a city, it pits the audience into the jungle of the Hunter's home world. This presents the script writer with the opportunity for a much more complex story, but this never comes to fruit. That is the first victim to escape, but thankfully the only one.

Elaborating more on why this story suffered without spilling too many important details is tough. Simply put, the story has too many loose ends and unnecessary turns. There is practically no development to any aspect of the script. We are introduced several subplots; the mysterious arrival of the prey, two different classifications of Predators and the imprisonment of a Predator, to name a few. The puzzle of the latter bothered me the most, but not a single one of the script's pieces are explained in any precise detail to the audience. They are not presented in a minor enough way to warrant a complete dismissal of their explanation, and the script suffers because of it.

The second victim, acting, did not escape the wrath of Predators. In a film such as this, one driven purely by action, the bar is not set incredibly high for acting; it is the prey with the broken ankle. The Hunter takes his time tracking and butchering but does so ruthlessly. Predators has no remorse for this victim and kills with witty deliveries, properly placed badassness and an unnatural sense of dread. The victim knows it will be killed but is clueless until mere moments before its demise.

Predators' final piece of meat eventually gets an upper hand and strikes back. The pacing is a give and take between the prey and Hunter and effectively drives the story at the proper speed and intensity, culminating with an impressive crescendo. There are few places where the film fails to ratchet up the conflict between the two enemies; this is the focal point of the film and its greatest strength. In short, the Hunter butchers its prey with unflinching and gruesome terror.

While it is the weakest film of the Predator franchise, that is not entirely a bad thing. It presents itself in such a way that it can be held separate from the first two films because those are only concerned with the pure carnage of one Predator and their demise from the main character's insanely good luck. This film, however, is interested more in the actual effectiveness of hunting methods and the Hunter's prey fighting back on a much more impressive level than before. All in all, it is definitely worth a watch if you enjoyed the first two films and stands well on its own as an action film. The important question, in this economy, is whether or not it is worth the admission price: yes, undoubtedly.

Re: John's Reviews
 

I assume you aren't including this as part of the Predator franchise then?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...iem_poster.jpg

Re: John's Reviews
 

Nope, that one has Aliens in it. I consider Predator franchise to be Predator only films, same with Aliens.

So AVP would be its own separate franchise...and let's not talk about that load of crap. ;)

https://images2.imgbox.com/42/61/Ue9EFGHX_o.jpeg
Tron: Legacy-

Upon repeat viewing, which I highly recommend, I now recognize the potential from this film's creation. The graphics are stellar and immersive, even more so than Avatar. You're brought into another world right inside your computer or your cell phone. It's wicked, dude.

The score is one of perfection and the film's strong suit. Connecting the soundtrack to the visuals is done so artfully that future films should look to this flick to figure out how to get it done. The high points of the film are accompanied by grand crescendos on the part of Daft Punk. It's wicked, dude.

The philosophy is one that repeat viewings really brings to the surface. When you embrace Tron: Legacy's minor flaws you can dig deep into the writing and its themes. They are splendid and insightful, ranging from fascism to freedom. There's plenty of room for interpretations with this flick. It's wicked, dude.

Finally, the ending left open a wide door for future films to follow. Many more new worlds to discover. The one place where man hasn't been before. Pure inspiration and creativity. This flick will spawn new and grander films to follow. It's wicked, dude.

Re: John's Reviews
 

You know, I kinda agree. I didn't love it as much as you (a solid is what I'd give it) did but I did like it quite a bit more than I was lead to believe I was going to hate it.

Re: John's Reviews
 

Thanks John :) must see this :blush:

I like your ratings. Very accurate. We seem to share the same taste in movies.

Re: John's Reviews
 

DIE HARD is pretty much the perfect action film and deservedly made Bruce Willis a superstar. There's was only one thing in your review that I was curious about. You said that McClane's wife (Bonnie Bedelia), changes near the end of the film and I was wondering what change you were talking about?

Re: Click title to see trailer
 

I loved THE WHOLE NINE YARDS but I didn't like this movie at all.

I think I'm going to get this on blu ray. I saw this in theaters..and my friend who was with me said my dad looked like the Paul Gleason police character..you know, the a-hole. He does, actually. My dad is Richard Vernon.

Anyway, cool review!

Omg, I am so embarrassed by my writing in that Die Hard review.

Bumping this thread to kickstart my journey.


To Do List:

• Blade Runner
• Blade Runner 2049
• The Last Samurai
• Time Cop
• The Lake House
• Sweet November
• Pinocchio
• Toy Story
• The Brave Little Toaster
• The Land Before Time
• Spirited Away
• Dredd
• Suggestions welcomed

Re: John's Reviews
 

Looking forward to reading the ones for Blade Runner and Spirited Away.

Re: John's Reviews
 

Talk about a zombie thread :D

I would say clearly one of the most underrated blockbusters of recent years. IMHO it suffered from both a post Avatar 3D backlash(being the next tentpole 3D film) and the marketing assuming the general public knew Tron that well.

Not without its flaws perhaps, most obviously I think it feels a little light in the middle act both action and plot wise but still a film with a lot of visual flair to its, a great soundtrack and generally good performances.

It does seem to be progressively getting a rediscovery to the degree I wonder whether Disney might carry on the franchise? their buying Starwars along with the only decent box office seemed to put stop it but a third film was planned. Perhaps a series for the Disney+ streaming service?

Along similar lines I think the Johansson Ghost in the Shell also didn't get its due, maybe not as smart as the anime films but still smarter than I expected, again some great visuals that do more than recycle the anime and ironically a plot that addresses the IMHO rather misplaced "whitewashing" criticism it got.

@MoreOrLess: Personally, I think the spin-off animated show Tron: Uprising was killed too soon, but I still suggest giving it a watch if you enjoy Legacy.

Greed; it has no limits, no boundaries, and no antidote.

Spirited Away was Japan's most successful movie during the 00's, and it even dethroned Titanic from the number one spot at their domestic box office. To this day it still stands as the highest grossing film in Japan and, at its initial release, was lauded as one of the most successful animations ever, winning an Academy Award for Best Animated Feature. And it is the only non-English, hand-drawn animated film to do so.

Hand-drawn animation can suffer in a number of ways when it comes to storytelling. For instance, the attention to detail, or lack thereof, can present the same story in a multitude of ways. Too little detail and we are left wondering what story is trying to be told, and too much detail can leave us reeling and failing to absorb other crucial storytelling elements, such as dialogue. Spirited Away is rare in that it maintains a fine balance between too little and too much detail, and not once does its animation detract from its storytelling. Emotion is conveyed without ambiguity, and action is presented without confusion. Yet all the while there is a secret that hides beneath its surface; a type of magic I daresay.

Spirited Away is also one of the few animated films where you surrender nothing when faced with the choice between its subbed or dubbed presentation. The English writers were, in my opinion, acutely aware of the importance behind this choice and were able to create a dubbed edition that seamlessly integrated English voice acting with the animation, and I am convinced that this was instrumental in its success with American audiences. Couple this with the fact that most of the original audio effects were left untouched, and it creates a product that is nearly timeless in its execution. I cannot help but see the significance in this bilateral perfection: it is the perfect vessel suited to Disney's greed, furthering the movie's motif.

Timeless art is rare in its execution and even more so in its marketing, but the true genius that lies beneath the surface of Spirited Away is the moral ambiguity it conveys to the viewer. Greed sneaks into and behind every line and color without once presenting itself as an evil to be avoided. Instead, it welcomes us, befriends us, and shows us that the true evil of greed is desire itself.

Blade Runner -

Where does one begin with this cult classic? Move in. Stop. Track 45 right. Stop. Center and stop. Enhance. Stop.

"More human than human" is a motto that begs more questions than it answers. What makes us human? Peel back one layer, and we will find three more. Each one overlapping like scales on an artificial snake.

I take the outlandish view that any version of Blade Runner is the best version to watch. Each version, of which there are five, delves into the seedy underbelly of humanity. Overpopulation, climate change, mass extinctions, and pursuit of perfection. No single version holds more truth than the other, but it is agreed by many that The Final Cut is the proper choice. I contend, however, that even the theatrical cut has its merits, namely an introduction to a world that is still far off and alien to us.

What was once considered debatable is now held as fact: Our hero, Rick Deckard, is more human than human. He is the embodiment of our plights, our fears, and our dreams. He dutifully accepts the first, ignores the second, and questions the third. What does it all mean? No one has the answer; and so, what continually drives us forward is the same mechanism that drives Deckard. The endless search for meaning in a world devoid of it is no less dangerous than running on the edge of a blade. What use is meaning if it cannot be commodified?

Blade Runner is a film that deserves its status as a cult classic because of these things. It gives us no answers, no explicit meaning, and no purpose to which to cling. Instead, it paints a mirror copy of our own world in the darkest of grays. More human than human? Our humanity is already tough enough.

Avengers: Endgame -

Welcome to the greatest cash grab in cinema history! Wear a spandex Captain America suit, get their early, and hit the concessions bar because Avengers: Endgame is back!

The Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) is a multi-film monstrosity that knows no shame, and Avengers: Endgame is the 22nd punch to an already beautifully pulped audience. The scream of delight is louder, the roar of laughter is heartier, and the drain of bank accounts is swifter. But this film stands alone as the most shameless of the MCU films. It is an experimental exercise: how wide can the audience open their wallets? And the answer is, with numerous records broken, one of the most successful endeavors of the past decade. But alas, that does not make it good or necessary.

While I am not a comic book reader or collector I do understand the fundamentals of the business. Story lines and character arcs are carefully planned to stretch across multiple issues, and a poorly kept secret is that character deaths and revivals are mechanisms that are repeatedly used to sell more comics. These methods make sense for their shortened form and, more importantly, are entirely necessary for the business to remain viable. Yet the same cannot be said for multi-year productions and multi-million dollar budgets.

Does it have action? Yes! Does it have laughs? You bet! Does it have special effects? Most definitely! Does it do any of these things better than the previous 21 films in the MCU? Hell no! If you want action, watch Captain America: The Winter Solider. If you want laughs, watch Thor: Ragnarok. Those two films are standouts in the MCU for doing things better than their predecessors. As for special effects, the MCU is so chock full of them that you can pluck any movie from the universe and not go wrong.

Avengers: Endgame is, at best, revisionist history; it wants you convinced that the MCU can be better than it is already. If you are a fan of revisiting sets and story lines previously explored, but from a new vantage point, by all means crack that wallet open. If you are a fan like me, who cares about stories driven by more genuine emotion, then keep that wallet tightly shut. And hear this promise: there's another cash grab waiting off on the horizon with more heart and soul than Endgame could ever hope to revise.

Re: John's Reviews
 

Boy did you miss the point of Endgame. If you didn't care for the characters by now, you missed the point of the series, which was to see a more human side to these superheroes. You know, what's beneath the colored undies? What really stands out is how you compliment it on several areas at once and then say, "but it made a lot of money so I can act like there's nothing good about it by giving it a 0/5." Cash grabs are typically bad, but not always. Compare this cash-grab to Transformers 5 or AVP2. The whole MCU is a cash-grab, so if you're gonna hate Endgame you might as well hate everything after the first Avengers movie.

I mad the mistake of watching endgame before seeing any other MCU movie. I still pretty much liked it, I thought the time travel and character relations were cool, but I’ll have to rewatch it after I’ve seen other MCU so I can have a better appreciation for the characters (None of the deaths did anything for me).

That said, Johns recent reviews are of flawless masterpieces, and for me in that case endgame pales in comparison.... so maybe a little psychological effects of watching so many perfect films and then a decent one?

Re: John's Reviews
 

I was gonna fight McClane in an epic showdown when I saw his silly Endgame review, which is clearly meant as a bit of (admittedly funny) comedy. Alas, he gave Blade Runner 5 boxes, so he's OK by me. ;)


https://hosting.photobucket.com/imag...080&fit=bounds

You are not wrong. But I only care about one thing: should I pay money to watch this movie? I stand behind what I wrote, and I felt the same way about Infinity War. I accept neither as official cannon, and any reference to it in the coming Marvel films is just mass delusion/hysteria.


It was more of a reactionary review/perspective at the prospect of it being rereleased just 2 months after having already been released.

Indeed! I was on a roll with the first two reviews and felt like taking a humorous crack at my dislike of Endgame.

Re: John's Reviews
 

I can see how someone can like the MCU in general but not Endgame specifically - I thought it was fine at the time but man it doesn't hold up particularly well in hindsight. Even KeyserCorleone's claim about how it works because it shows the superheroes as "human" crumbles a bit when you consider how it's trying to juggle dozens of characters and all their relationships in the space of a mere three hours amidst providing all the usual whizz-bang spectacle and short-changes a lot of the characters in the process.

The idea of rating films based on whether they're worth spending any money on reminds me of a film magazine that used to run here that would rate movies based on how much a ticket should be worth. The highest rating was $20.00, but for some reason the lowest rating was $5.00 instead of $0.00. An odd system, but I guess it's a change from stars or grades.

Re: John's Reviews
 

Doesn't that hysteria bit seem a bit pretentious? Besides, if you're "testing" a new system, then maybe it's not perfect yet so the review itself could be flawed. I'm not trying to irk you, but of all of the reviews I've read here this seems to be the one I disagree with the most.

Re: John's Reviews
 

Good. That means it is working. :up: :cool:

Re: John's Reviews
 

If anything, the real problem with the review is that it's too vague, especially if you're going to make the claim that it deserves to be removed from official canon while barely saying much about the film itself beyond the sort of generic comments you could readily throw at any less-than-stellar entry into the series. That might preempt people telling you you "missed the point" if you manage to show that you got the point but still thought it was bad anyway.

That being said, I don't agree with the idea of acting like acknowledging this film as canon is delusional either, especially when you already acknowledge that the other films in the franchise function as "cash-grabs" anyway.

Like @Sedai already said my review was not exactly serious. It is tongue-in-cheek and hyperbole, and it all comes back to money. I want my $12 back.

Is it a fun movie? Sure. Should you see it if you like butts in spandex? No doubt. Should you see it if you don’t make a lot of money and live on a tight budget? Hells no! Skip it, watch something else, and pick it up at the library or wait till it hits Disney’s streaming service in December.

My days of living at the theater are over because I’ve been priced out, so I only go about 3-4 times a year these days. I have to carefully pick my movies but when I was in school I spent all my free money at the movies (I still didn’t go as often as some people) because I had no other real expenses and had access to student pricing. But now that I’m a silly adult with a car loan and property taxes I gotta take a loan out just to get in the door.

This!

Thinking about starting a video series where I review movies and TV. Obviously YouTube is better for longer content but it’s saturated. Here’s a short snippet of the idea. I may edit together a longer cut for YouTube or IGTV, but I’d like to continue doing one minute reviews. I like the brevity and challenge of editing to one minute.

Re: John's Reviews
 

"This movie was too long. You could've just taken Jared Leto out." :laugh: Tremendous.

Re: John's Reviews
 

Best review on the site! ;)

Thanks for that. I had a feeling you’d approve.

Yeah, I did everything possible to not read anything about the movie before it came out, so there was a lot I didn’t know going into it. I was caught off guard by that awful Wallace character. Just down right miserable addition to the story.

This did not age well.

:idea:

Maybe I'll take a crack at these over break!

I like what you've done here as it outlines how your tastes morph over time. I've seen a great many movies that I wouldn't necessarily choose but because I watched them with family or friends, and now its all up to me when I pick. Theres a difference between what I thought I liked back then and what I know I like now simply because the social situation isn't the same.