I said I would go into more details about these earlier, so let's do it. Here's the films I saw on the plane (and one I didn't - read on and find out which one!).
A Good Day to Die Hard - 6/10
I feel kind of bad marking a Die Hard film as 'average', but sadly, that's what I think of the fifth instalment in the franchise. The problem is that, while as an action film it's pretty good, as a Die Hard film it's shockingly off-base, which is a huge disappointment for fans of the earlier trilogy.
The first film, and the subsequent pair that followed it, were engaging thrillers as well as action films, and they all had extremely strong characters that drove the plots forward. Although I never got round to catching 4.0, I hear it was at least fairly decent and had an engaging plot, ridiculous as it may have gotten at times.
AGDtDH, on the other hand, is a straight up action film that barely even tries to be anything else. The story is surprisingly basic, and a massive letdown given how complex and interesting the other films were. John McClane has heard his (previously unmentioned!) son is in trouble and goes to find him, but gets caught up in a terrorist plot to do... something. It's all very bland and straightforward and aside from the twist which should come as no surprise to anyone who's a fan of of action movies, there's nothing particularly original here.
The acting is... mixed. Willis seems, with few exceptions, to be going along on autopilot. He really does seem to be just going with the motions, even with his on-screen son, for most of the film, and it's hard to get invested in someone who just seems along for the ride. Jai Courtney is one of the blandest leads I've seen in quite a while. He could be replaced with a puppet and it would give a more lively performance than he does (and would probably be far more entertaining). The initial villain is the only person who seems to be having fun with his performance, and it shows, because everyone else is completely forgettable. EVERYONE.
As for the action... well, since it's the focus of the movie you'd expect it to be good, and it is. It's also all there is, so you tend to get tired of it after a while. Unless you play 'spot the screw-up" as I did, in which my best score came during the car chase from the first half hour of the movie. At one point Willis drives a 4x4 down a series of vehicles as a way to get down from a bridge down to a lower one, but in a couple of shots the off-ramp used at the bridge are in clear view and are completely clear, meaning the entire sequence - cool as it was - was completely pointless. There also seemed to be a few areas where is seemed like a quick cut had been made to the movie and a second or two that should have been there wasn't. It didn't happen often, but it was jarring whenever it occurred.
While this isn't a terrible film, it's also fantastically forgettable and one I will be in no rush to rewatch. Die Hard films should be better than this. Maybe the touted sixth (and final) one will be. Here's to hoping.
The Last Stand - 7/10
My review in five words: It's a fucking Schwarzenegger film.
If you need more than that, then here we go. The film's got a basic set-up - a criminal boss has stolen a prototype high-speed car and is use it to cross the border into Mexico. To do this, he needs to go through the small town where Arnie is the Sheriff. I trust I need not explain the plot any more.
The first third of the film is about setup, and it does this fairly well. It introduces the 'colourful' characters of the town, as well as the bad guys and the plan. The middle third is about the townsfolk discovering the plan and preparing to stop it, and the final third is the big action scene where it all goes down.
The acting is... well, it's not great, but it's not awful either. It's really not what we're here for - that's the last third - but the actors do a decent enough job with what they have and none of them really come across as particularly bad. As for Arnie... well, he's Arnie. Acting was never his strong suit and that's fairly apparent here (although given how long he kept his love child secret, he can't be THAT bad at it :P). But when the action starts, he's in his element and really goes for it, shrugging off a freakin' stab to the leg at one point, which no-one else would get away with.
Yes, that final third is getting mentioned a lot, and for good reason. It's actually really good. The big gunfights are well put together, the characters finally get you invested in them, you smile when the bad guys go down and you laugh at how silly it all is both genuinely don't care because it's also a ton of fun.
One thing I did note that I feel worth mentioning is that the headshots (of which there are quite a few) are particularly over the top. There's a substantial amount of 'goop', for lack of a better word, with each one, and it looks far too cartoonish. Maybe it was just me, but as I say, worth mentioning.
This is a big, dumb action movie. And it's a lot of fun as a result. I'd say give it a whirl if you're into that sort of thing (and Johnny Knoxville isn't in it that much, so don't worry about that).
Stolen - 7/10
I'm actually struggling to remember a lot of this film, which is odd, because I actually quite enjoyed it at the time. I guess that's one way to describe this film: "fun but forgettable".
The basic plot is that Nicolas Cage (in one of his good turns, thankfully) is a bank thief who gets caught and spends years in prison. Now out, his daughter is kidnapped by his former partner-in-crime and held for ransom in exchange for the money he stole in their last hiest - money Cage doesn't actually have.
This is a basic, but entertaining little film, even if it is a little forgettable. I really don't have a lot to say about it as a result. The acting's fairly good, the location (New Orleans) is unusual and entertaining as a result, the bad guy is really creepy and the whole thing just about works out.
The biggest shock for me came when I check Wikipedia and saw when it came out. I could have sworn this was from the early 2000s, but it actually came out in 2012! VERY surprised to see that - it does NOT feel like a recent film.
But yeah, if you catch it on TV or something, check it out. It's basic but fun.
Demolition Man - 7/10, or 8/10 with AMC's StoryNotes
I'd forgotten almost everything about this film, including just how 'stagey' the whole thing is. Everything feels very much like a set. It's a decent enough film though. If you can though, try and check out the version with AMC's StageNotes, which made it far more entertaining. It's like a DVD commentary... in text form!
GI Joe: Retaliation - 6/10
AKA: Shit Blows Up: The Movie.
This film has a plot, but they don't really care what it is and so neither do I. Cobra's up to no good and manage to wipe out of most of the Joes, leading to a three-man group having to connect with a few others and try to save the world. Or something. It doesn't matter, really.
This is very much like A Good Day to Die Hard - little more than an excuse to run around and have action scenes. LOTS of action scenes. And they're good action scenes, don't get me wrong. But some of them - the one from the trailers with cliff swinging in particular - are kind of silly.
If you're a 13-year old boy (or possess the means to imitate one), then you will love this nonsense. Otherwise, don't bother.
Oh, and Bruce Willis is barely in it, despite getting his name on the box. Big letdown there.
Django Unchained - 9/10
What the fuck did I watch? I really don't know. It was fucking awesome, whatever the nigger-loving hell it was, but I couldn't even remotely begin to tell you anything about it. Just... just go see this. PLEASE.
Yeah, I kinda love Django. I love it because it's brutal and hilarious and dramatic and horrifying all at the same time. So many movies try to do this and so few actually succeed.
Yeah, I kinda love Django. I love it because it's brutal and hilarious and dramatic and horrifying all at the same time. So many movies try to do this and so few actually succeed.
Yeah, I kinda love Django. I love it because it's brutal and hilarious and dramatic and horrifying all at the same time. So many movies try to do this and so few actually succeed.
As a stand alone movie, 'Evil Dead' is just about passable. However, as a supposed continuation (reboot, semi-sequel, remake or whatever the hell it is) it sucks massive donkey dick!
As anyone who's ever seen one of Raimi's 'Evil Dead' films will know, the demons (named deadites) in this universe are visually distinguishable by their bad skin complexion and white eyes of those under their possession. As for their attitude; the deadites love to physically and mentally torture their victims before killing them. Well, here comes the 2013 version and guess what, they fucking decided to throw all of that lore out of the window and change the deadites into Regan from 'The Exorcist'. Way to lose a unique spin on possession, filmmakers.
Gone are the white eyes (now replaced with possessed Linda Blair eyes) and instead of torturing their victims with playful songs (♫"we're gonna get you, not another peep, time to go to sleep"♫), the deadites now shout off a few expletives and go in for the kill. Seriously, this cluster-fuck of a film has deadites shouting "fuck you"! I'm actually amazed that not once did they go the whole hog and have a deadite scream "your mother sucks cocks in hell".
Now don't get me wrong, I love 'The Exorcist'. It's one of the greatest horror films of all time and is still to this day, an absolutely terrifying psychological experience. I also love the original 'The Evil Dead' (and to a lesser extent its sequel - don't get me started on the third outing though). Having said that, I love a good curry and I'm also partial to a bowl of Coco Pops but that doesn't mean that the two are compatible!
Another change for the worse comes in the form of the book of the dead (or the Necronomicon Ex Mortis for you aficionados), which is used to summon the demons into the world of the living. In the original flick, a person read a passage from the book and wham bam; it's deadite time. This new film changes things so that now there are rules (stupid rules at that; some shit about boiling water and self-mutilation). These rules add up to exactly squat. They bring nothing to the table other than their sheer unnecessity.
Speaking of the self-mutilation; since when have deadites relished hurting the body they possess. The closest I can recall from the Raimi films is in the first one when a deadite bites its own hand off. However, the deadite only does this because a non-possessed fellow had just practically lopped its hand off with a machete and the deadite was "finishing the job" so to speak by getting rid of the dangling and useless hand. Whilst the deadite does this, it screams in agony. It is not enjoying this self mutilation. In this new film, the deadites self-mutilate without so much as a whimper.
At this point, you might say "well, it is a remake. There's nothing wrong with shaking up the template a little". Well, I'm here to tell you that you're flat out wrong! The director and Sam Raimi have gone on record as saying that this film takes place in the same universe as the original film (Ash and company's olds-mobile is even still parked up outside the cabin covered in rust). If this is supposed to take place in the same universe then you don't change the details for the mere sake of change. It's disrespectful (not to mention incompatible continuity wise).
However, I am willing to put these issues to one side and evaluate the film on it's own merits for the sake of this review...
Plus Point (yes, a singular point) * It's gory. I mean really gory. It's great to see a balls to the wall gore fest again. Outside of the terrible 'Saw' series, you just don't get to see this sort of thing often enough in horror these days. It's all PG-13 this and watered down violence that. Not here though; this flick wears its R rating on its sleeve.
Not only is it gory but it's practical effects gore! CGI is used sparingly in this film and if other directors take anything away from this film, please God, let it be this.
Negative Points * The opening to the film is a completely unnecessary scene. You could remove it from the film and it would make no difference to the story whatsoever. The first rule of competent editing is "if a scene can be removed without affecting the rest of the film, you cut it. No matter how much you love it, it goes".
There is one (again, unnecessary) callback to this scene later on in the film. Basically, in the opening a father burns his possessed daughter alive. The callback occurs when the characters enter the cabin's basement and come across a burned area. I immediately thought "righto, that's the spot where the girl was burned during the opening". No sooner had I finished my thought, a flashback of the girl burning pops up on screen. This film treats its audience like morons. I know how to connect dots, I've been doing it ever since I was a little kid for fucks sakes!
* After the inconsequential opening and before the deadites arrive, it feels as though you're watching an episode of 'Dawson's Crack Creek'... only worse (and that's saying something). When I watch an 'Evil Dead' movie, I don't want some soap opera bullshit about a drug addict and her estranged relationship with her brother. I want deadites killing people. Simples.
* Mia's brother talks to his sister in a really odd and creepy way and yet it's not meant to be odd and creepy, it's supposed to be heartwarming. He says shit like "you look beautiful, as always" and proceeds to reach out to her head, fakes pulling a necklace out from behind her ear and then gives it to her as a present.
Basically, remember the love scene between Ash and Linda on the sofa in the original film? Okay now imagine that they are actually brother and sister! Yeah, it's that fucking creepy. If I talked and acted like that with my sister, I'd expect her to run for the hills, screaming "fucking incest pervert"!
* Speaking of that necklace; it's the same hideous one from the original (the magnifying glass). Except in Raimi's film, that ugly ass necklace served a purpose; to ultimately allow Ash to destroy the book of the dead. Here though, it's nothing more than a moronic call back.
* The film looks like shit. It has that Platinum Dunes filter applied to it (as do 75% of all horror films these days, much to my annoyance). Everything looks as though the director took a piss on the film stock.
I endorse this statement. 'Battle Royale' is pure brilliance. It shits all over 'The Hunger Games' from a great height. Also, I recommend the manga adaptation (though buying all of the volumes is a bit costly; it's well worth it).
Alien: Director's Cut 9/10
Man I remember seeing the theatrical version when I was 12 and it has been my favorite movie ever since. The Director's Cut added a few of the extra scenes that were in the bonus material of the old DVD release (or even the LaserDisc). Some of them I love and some of them I don't.
What I didn't like about it was that they removed material from the original movie and by that the DC with all the added scenes is 1 minute shorter than the theatrical version. Really the movie was a masterpiece. You just don't cut things out of it. You just ruin it.
I don't think I'll watch the director's cut again because I like the original a lot more and also there is no score only audio track on the DC DVD.
Coming up next: The worst movie in the series: Aliens.
Alien: Director's Cut 9/10
Man I remember seeing the theatrical version when I was 12 and it has been my favorite movie ever since. The Director's Cut added a few of the extra scenes that were in the bonus material of the old DVD release (or even the LaserDisc). Some of them I love and some of them I don't.
What I didn't like about it was that they removed material from the original movie and by that the DC with all the added scenes is 1 minute shorter than the theatrical version. Really the movie was a masterpiece. You just don't cut things out of it. You just ruin it.
I don't think I'll watch the director's cut again because I like the original a lot more and also there is no score only audio track on the DC DVD.
I couldn't agree more. How on Earth LV-246 Ridley deemed it a good idea to cut the superbly futile "what are my chances" scene is beyond me. Also, as interesting as the egg morphing addition is, it ruins the pacing something chronic.
Having said that, I did really like the addition of the alien dangling amongst the chains prior to killing Brett (blending in with it's mechanical surroundings - very Giger) and the alien hitting the cat box in a dismissive way towards the end.
You would have thought that Ridley would have taken the opportunity to sort out that horrendous cut between dummy Ash and Ian Holm though.
Coming up next: The worst movie in the series: Aliens.
Ooohhh, controversial. Seriously though, I know where you're coming from. 'Aliens' turned a piece of art ('Alien') into a summer blockbuster, which does aggravate me quite a lot but I can't in good conscience say that I think it's worse than 'Alien: Resurrection' (which was one of those god awful self-parodies).
For me the order of 'Alien' films from best to worst is...
So just as planned today I saw Aliens. And for the first time ever the Theatrical Cut (since the 2000 DVD only had the Special Edition Cut on it).
That's 17 minutes of mostly backstory that were cut out for cinemas to basically get to the action faster.
We never hear about Ripley's Daughter (which will be replaced by Mocap Newt in this movie later to get an emotional connection or something). And we don't see how the colonists on the planet make the first contact with the AlienEggs that create the many many Aliens that we will encounter in the movie. So far so good.
Did we really need those scenes: I say yes. Those were the more enjoyable part of the movie. So it's good to have them. Even Though I really hate Mocap Newt. Edit: On the other hand going into the colony the first time without the extra scenes on the colony creates a completely different kind of suspense. You aren't sure what will happen while you know exactly what will happen with those scenes from the colony.
18 minutes in and everything is fine. And then we meet the marines and everything goes to shit.
I really don't care for them and they are only in there so that Cameron can make a comment about the Vietnam War. And here lies my problem with this movie. He basically ruined the whole series just to do this. He created the first batch of Horror movie assholes that everyone only wants to see slaughtered in the history of cinema.
Eli Roth surely took notes from that. Once these idiots come in my ability to care for anything in this movie dropped to zero.
Then the plot that makes Mocap Newt the replacement daughter for Ripley. I couldn't care less. And making her survive until the end just angered me. (Thank god Alien³ went back to the more atmospheric approach of the first movie and even got rid of the Newt problem asap.)
So yeah. This movie is average. And in the end it's not an Alien movie no matter how many of them you put in there. It's a repainted Vietnam War movie. And most people seem to like that. I mean the amount of people that tell me they love the Alien series and that Aliens is the best by far is huge. And then I ignore them and never ever speak to them again.
What the frak is "Mocap Newt"?! There was no motion capture used for Carrie Henn's scenes. Although a dummy was used for the final act (in both the theatrical cut and the special edition). At least to the best of my knowledge.
I mean the amount of people that tell me they love the Alien series and that Aliens is the best by far is huge. And then I ignore them and never ever speak to them again.
If it weren't for the fact that I'd lose most of my real life friends if I took this approach, I'd be sorely tempted to do likewise.
What the frak is "Mocap Newt"?! There was no motion capture used for Carrie Henn's scenes. Although a dummy was used for the final act (in both the theatrical cut and the special edition). At least to the best of my knowledge.
Oh it's a reference to the Mocap Dog that will be included in the next Call of Duty game (how fitting) so the player can have an emotional connection to the game (how fitting, same as Newt, again) and of course so they can murder the dog horribly in the end (unlike Newt).
Also I'd like Newt a lot more if most of her text in the second half of the movie wasn't just ear-melting screams.
I agree. Although, I do love Aliens. If you want to talk controversy, let's go into Terminator 2, where Cameron Lucased all over his own movie.
Aliens is still one of the most quotable movies of all time. So what if it's not a horror movie? I still think it's a great movie on it's own who's effects still hold up to this day!
I will say one other thing though. I felt the cast chemistry in Aliens was much better than Alien. Unlike Aliens, I didn't feel the experienced camaraderie the writers intended in Alien. I heard that intention in the interviews and was honestly confused. Watching Alien, I got the feeling that they barely worked with each other before.
MUCH better than 80% of James Wan’s films. The horror wasn’t over the top or bloody, it was actually quite suspenseful and the scares had good timing. An amazing horror film and the best I’ve seen in years.
I'm sorry, I accidentally said words. What I meant to do was alternate between babbling on incessantly in high-pitched noises, screaming in abject pain from frequent self-harm, and whispers followed by loud laughter after hearing the word "butt" or something that could refer to a butt.
I was actually surprised at how much I enjoyed Despicable Me 2. Don't get me wrong I liked the first one as well but the trailers mostly made the movie seem like fart jokes but I guess they played it smart because when I seen the movie, the characters were fun and great, the plot was excellent. The minions were funny as it was interesting finding out the mystery behind
the missing minions and the reveal of what they were turned into.
and the jokes were funny. I would say Despicable Me 2 is even better than the first movie. So 9/10
I'm sorry, I accidentally said words. What I meant to do was alternate between babbling on incessantly in high-pitched noises, screaming in abject pain from frequent self-harm, and whispers followed by loud laughter after hearing the word "butt" or something that could refer to a butt.
Because yes, the Minions are totally the sole focus of the movie. Yep. That Gru fellow was nothing but a minor background character. No sense caring about what's going on with him or those little girls.
I'm sorry, I accidentally said words. What I meant to do was alternate between babbling on incessantly in high-pitched noises, screaming in abject pain from frequent self-harm, and whispers followed by loud laughter after hearing the word "butt" or something that could refer to a butt.
You guys know the Minions are getting a spin-off movie in 'Autumn 2014', right?
Well of course they are. The Minions are in a long line of obnoxious, mass-produced sidekicks who can be used to sell a disproportionately massive amount of merchandise. I think this started with Toy Story, when it was realized that CG allowed studios to mass produce carbon copies of the same character model very cheaply.
Being fair I'm not sure if you have seen the movie so I'll put this as a spoiler
The minions at least had a little more jokes this time around other than hitting each other. Like for example the three minions who run into Gru's office after he set's his table on fire and one of the minions destroy a wall and falls out of the house. Also there's Dave who had that joke where he daydreamed about him & Lucy
Being fair I'm not sure if you have seen the movie so I'll put this as a spoiler
The minions at least had a little more jokes this time around other than hitting each other. Like for example the three minions who run into Gru's office after he set's his table on fire and one of the minions destroy a wall and falls out of the house. Also there's Dave who had that joke where he daydreamed about him & Lucy
OH I have gazed upon the face of true brilliance this day and it's name is....
...Oh, whatever! EAT MY ASS. Seriously that's the stupidest argument for a movie I've ever heard.
One of the characters destroys a wall! OHOHOHOHOHOHOH
And they fall out of the house! AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA BRILLIANCE.
DAYDREAMING ABOUT SOMEONE ELSE!? STOP I'LL BUST MY GUTS EVERYWHERE. OH PLEASE STOP.
OH I have gazed upon the face of true brilliance this day and it's name is....
...Oh, whatever! EAT MY ASS. Seriously that's the stupidest argument for a movie I've ever heard.
Look you don't have to agree with me but at least they put some more jokes for the minions that wasn't hitting each other. Exactly where did I mention in my comment ''Oh the minion jokes are the best part?'' I didn't mention anything like that. I simply said that to be fair they had more jokes that was not them hitting themselves. The movie in my opinion was good for its characters and story not minion jokes. All I said was the minion jokes were a little better than the first movie because it was not just them hitting each other.
Edit: You also don't have to be so damn sarcastic, again I didn't mention anywhere that these jokes were the funniest in the movie, these are examples I gave that they just didn't use jokes that included them hitting each other and just keep in mind that before I seen the movie, I was not that excited from watching the trailers because it seemed like it was just a couple of fart jokes but when I seen the movie I liked it because it did have good jokes,good story and likeable characters.
I liked Despicable Me better than a lot of other movies on its same level. But the notion that the comedy improved because it went from hitting people to breaking a wall, falling out of a building, and daydreaming is.....what....what even. There are no standards for comedy anymore.
I'm done. Fuck movies. I'm fucking done with these fucking movies. There's no good movies anymore and people can fucking like and enjoy whatever. Fuck em.
Fawful no offence but you have to understand that people are going to have different opinions on movies,games, even comedy. If you don't like the comedy in one movie then that's fine, that's your opinion but you have to accept that other people might think things are funny that you don't think is funny. Just because one movie comes out that you don't think is funny does not mean its funny to anyone else.
On another note, Again I didn't mention that the minion jokes were better than the first film but I do believe its a step up because at least they tried some new jokes with the minions. In the first movie the minions just kept hitting each other for comedy and that just got old after a few times.
The commercials outright repelled me from them, but since Despicable Me was held up by many people as an underrated gem of some sort and the greatest animated film of 2010(the same year that gave me The Illusionist), I figured I'd give it a shot.
And frankly, I need to stop giving these things chances. Shoving forced sentimentality into the climax with some vague wide-market middle-American message about family or growing up or raising a child or some shit into a film that is otherwise about farts and how funny it is to see a guy hit in the crotch is apparently enough to make people think there's something more to a dumbed-down, mass market kids' film made to sell merchandise.
The ever-enthusiastic geek demographic certainly does not see animation as being merely for children. But it suffers from an inverted snobbery, with more inventive or experimental animation dismissed as “pretentious” or “arthouse”, and from a view of the medium that is built largely on nostalgia for beloved childhood cartoons. Even dedicated animation enthusiasts can overlook much of the best work which is out there: perhaps it is in human nature for audiences to stick to the films which they think they might enjoy rather than try anything new.
Honestly, I couldn't stand the first one. To me, the minions were the worst part of the movie, but there wasn't a single character that I could actually stand. I didn't find any of it really all that funny and the whole movie just kinda felt slapped together. I couldn't really see the point of a lot of it and was able to predict the ending from the trailer. Not that predicting the ending from a trailer is a necessarily bad thing, but in this movie a surprise at the end might have saved it a little for me.
EDIT: Almost forgot the reason I came to this thread.
Pacific Rim
Now, this was a pretty good movie. I wasn't expecting to really enjoy it as much as I did, but it was very well put together and really deserved more attention than fucking Grown Ups 2. I wasn't expecting to care about the characters and the outcomes of giant robot fights as much as I did, which is a total kudos to this film. There were a lot of archetypal characters in this movie... but they were used well and were memorable enough for me to care about their fate as well as having very nice connections that were well illustrated.
Honestly, I think this movie had the things that Man of Steel lacked. It had heart and soul and I could feel it in the movie. Because of the connection forged between the audience and the people involved and the slightly slower pace of the action sequences, each fight felt like it had weight and wasn't just filler in between explosions. The Kaiju felt like a legitimate threat, the changes in society felt like a sensible reaction to giant seamonsters popping up all over the place. And I left the theater wanting to know more, wanting to see a bit more of this world that they created.
Sure there were problems. There's a few bizarre plot things that feel like a scene got cut from the movie but they just kept barreling along with it anyways and it requires a bit of suspension of disbelief to accept that the worlds' governments carefully analyzed their seamonster problem and decided the best solution was giant robots. But these are fairly minor in the face of the fact that the whole experience was solidly put together and enjoyable to watch.
Comments
A Good Day to Die Hard - 6/10
I feel kind of bad marking a Die Hard film as 'average', but sadly, that's what I think of the fifth instalment in the franchise. The problem is that, while as an action film it's pretty good, as a Die Hard film it's shockingly off-base, which is a huge disappointment for fans of the earlier trilogy.
The first film, and the subsequent pair that followed it, were engaging thrillers as well as action films, and they all had extremely strong characters that drove the plots forward. Although I never got round to catching 4.0, I hear it was at least fairly decent and had an engaging plot, ridiculous as it may have gotten at times.
AGDtDH, on the other hand, is a straight up action film that barely even tries to be anything else. The story is surprisingly basic, and a massive letdown given how complex and interesting the other films were. John McClane has heard his (previously unmentioned!) son is in trouble and goes to find him, but gets caught up in a terrorist plot to do... something. It's all very bland and straightforward and aside from the twist which should come as no surprise to anyone who's a fan of of action movies, there's nothing particularly original here.
The acting is... mixed. Willis seems, with few exceptions, to be going along on autopilot. He really does seem to be just going with the motions, even with his on-screen son, for most of the film, and it's hard to get invested in someone who just seems along for the ride. Jai Courtney is one of the blandest leads I've seen in quite a while. He could be replaced with a puppet and it would give a more lively performance than he does (and would probably be far more entertaining). The initial villain is the only person who seems to be having fun with his performance, and it shows, because everyone else is completely forgettable. EVERYONE.
As for the action... well, since it's the focus of the movie you'd expect it to be good, and it is. It's also all there is, so you tend to get tired of it after a while. Unless you play 'spot the screw-up" as I did, in which my best score came during the car chase from the first half hour of the movie. At one point Willis drives a 4x4 down a series of vehicles as a way to get down from a bridge down to a lower one, but in a couple of shots the off-ramp used at the bridge are in clear view and are completely clear, meaning the entire sequence - cool as it was - was completely pointless. There also seemed to be a few areas where is seemed like a quick cut had been made to the movie and a second or two that should have been there wasn't. It didn't happen often, but it was jarring whenever it occurred.
While this isn't a terrible film, it's also fantastically forgettable and one I will be in no rush to rewatch. Die Hard films should be better than this. Maybe the touted sixth (and final) one will be. Here's to hoping.
The Last Stand - 7/10
My review in five words: It's a fucking Schwarzenegger film.
If you need more than that, then here we go. The film's got a basic set-up - a criminal boss has stolen a prototype high-speed car and is use it to cross the border into Mexico. To do this, he needs to go through the small town where Arnie is the Sheriff. I trust I need not explain the plot any more.
The first third of the film is about setup, and it does this fairly well. It introduces the 'colourful' characters of the town, as well as the bad guys and the plan. The middle third is about the townsfolk discovering the plan and preparing to stop it, and the final third is the big action scene where it all goes down.
The acting is... well, it's not great, but it's not awful either. It's really not what we're here for - that's the last third - but the actors do a decent enough job with what they have and none of them really come across as particularly bad. As for Arnie... well, he's Arnie. Acting was never his strong suit and that's fairly apparent here (although given how long he kept his love child secret, he can't be THAT bad at it :P). But when the action starts, he's in his element and really goes for it, shrugging off a freakin' stab to the leg at one point, which no-one else would get away with.
Yes, that final third is getting mentioned a lot, and for good reason. It's actually really good. The big gunfights are well put together, the characters finally get you invested in them, you smile when the bad guys go down and you laugh at how silly it all is both genuinely don't care because it's also a ton of fun.
One thing I did note that I feel worth mentioning is that the headshots (of which there are quite a few) are particularly over the top. There's a substantial amount of 'goop', for lack of a better word, with each one, and it looks far too cartoonish. Maybe it was just me, but as I say, worth mentioning.
This is a big, dumb action movie. And it's a lot of fun as a result. I'd say give it a whirl if you're into that sort of thing (and Johnny Knoxville isn't in it that much, so don't worry about that).
Stolen - 7/10
I'm actually struggling to remember a lot of this film, which is odd, because I actually quite enjoyed it at the time. I guess that's one way to describe this film: "fun but forgettable".
The basic plot is that Nicolas Cage (in one of his good turns, thankfully) is a bank thief who gets caught and spends years in prison. Now out, his daughter is kidnapped by his former partner-in-crime and held for ransom in exchange for the money he stole in their last hiest - money Cage doesn't actually have.
This is a basic, but entertaining little film, even if it is a little forgettable. I really don't have a lot to say about it as a result. The acting's fairly good, the location (New Orleans) is unusual and entertaining as a result, the bad guy is really creepy and the whole thing just about works out.
The biggest shock for me came when I check Wikipedia and saw when it came out. I could have sworn this was from the early 2000s, but it actually came out in 2012! VERY surprised to see that - it does NOT feel like a recent film.
But yeah, if you catch it on TV or something, check it out. It's basic but fun.
Demolition Man - 7/10, or 8/10 with AMC's StoryNotes
I'd forgotten almost everything about this film, including just how 'stagey' the whole thing is. Everything feels very much like a set. It's a decent enough film though. If you can though, try and check out the version with AMC's StageNotes, which made it far more entertaining. It's like a DVD commentary... in text form!
GI Joe: Retaliation - 6/10
AKA: Shit Blows Up: The Movie.
This film has a plot, but they don't really care what it is and so neither do I. Cobra's up to no good and manage to wipe out of most of the Joes, leading to a three-man group having to connect with a few others and try to save the world. Or something. It doesn't matter, really.
This is very much like A Good Day to Die Hard - little more than an excuse to run around and have action scenes. LOTS of action scenes. And they're good action scenes, don't get me wrong. But some of them - the one from the trailers with cliff swinging in particular - are kind of silly.
If you're a 13-year old boy (or possess the means to imitate one), then you will love this nonsense. Otherwise, don't bother.
Oh, and Bruce Willis is barely in it, despite getting his name on the box. Big letdown there.
Django Unchained - 9/10
What the fuck did I watch? I really don't know. It was fucking awesome, whatever the nigger-loving hell it was, but I couldn't even remotely begin to tell you anything about it. Just... just go see this. PLEASE.
Giant Robots and Monsters fighting is awesome, the rest was lagging a bit behind.
I missed the bit at the end after the credits.
I only agree with the first two.
You need to see Battle Royale, stat.
As a stand alone movie, 'Evil Dead' is just about passable. However, as a supposed continuation (reboot, semi-sequel, remake or whatever the hell it is) it sucks massive donkey dick!
As anyone who's ever seen one of Raimi's 'Evil Dead' films will know, the demons (named deadites) in this universe are visually distinguishable by their bad skin complexion and white eyes of those under their possession. As for their attitude; the deadites love to physically and mentally torture their victims before killing them. Well, here comes the 2013 version and guess what, they fucking decided to throw all of that lore out of the window and change the deadites into Regan from 'The Exorcist'. Way to lose a unique spin on possession, filmmakers.
Gone are the white eyes (now replaced with possessed Linda Blair eyes) and instead of torturing their victims with playful songs (♫"we're gonna get you, not another peep, time to go to sleep"♫), the deadites now shout off a few expletives and go in for the kill. Seriously, this cluster-fuck of a film has deadites shouting "fuck you"! I'm actually amazed that not once did they go the whole hog and have a deadite scream "your mother sucks cocks in hell".
Now don't get me wrong, I love 'The Exorcist'. It's one of the greatest horror films of all time and is still to this day, an absolutely terrifying psychological experience. I also love the original 'The Evil Dead' (and to a lesser extent its sequel - don't get me started on the third outing though). Having said that, I love a good curry and I'm also partial to a bowl of Coco Pops but that doesn't mean that the two are compatible!
Another change for the worse comes in the form of the book of the dead (or the Necronomicon Ex Mortis for you aficionados), which is used to summon the demons into the world of the living. In the original flick, a person read a passage from the book and wham bam; it's deadite time. This new film changes things so that now there are rules (stupid rules at that; some shit about boiling water and self-mutilation). These rules add up to exactly squat. They bring nothing to the table other than their sheer unnecessity.
Speaking of the self-mutilation; since when have deadites relished hurting the body they possess. The closest I can recall from the Raimi films is in the first one when a deadite bites its own hand off. However, the deadite only does this because a non-possessed fellow had just practically lopped its hand off with a machete and the deadite was "finishing the job" so to speak by getting rid of the dangling and useless hand. Whilst the deadite does this, it screams in agony. It is not enjoying this self mutilation. In this new film, the deadites self-mutilate without so much as a whimper.
At this point, you might say "well, it is a remake. There's nothing wrong with shaking up the template a little". Well, I'm here to tell you that you're flat out wrong! The director and Sam Raimi have gone on record as saying that this film takes place in the same universe as the original film (Ash and company's olds-mobile is even still parked up outside the cabin covered in rust). If this is supposed to take place in the same universe then you don't change the details for the mere sake of change. It's disrespectful (not to mention incompatible continuity wise).
However, I am willing to put these issues to one side and evaluate the film on it's own merits for the sake of this review...
* It's gory. I mean really gory. It's great to see a balls to the wall gore fest again. Outside of the terrible 'Saw' series, you just don't get to see this sort of thing often enough in horror these days. It's all PG-13 this and watered down violence that. Not here though; this flick wears its R rating on its sleeve.
Not only is it gory but it's practical effects gore! CGI is used sparingly in this film and if other directors take anything away from this film, please God, let it be this.
Negative Points
* The opening to the film is a completely unnecessary scene. You could remove it from the film and it would make no difference to the story whatsoever. The first rule of competent editing is "if a scene can be removed without affecting the rest of the film, you cut it. No matter how much you love it, it goes".
There is one (again, unnecessary) callback to this scene later on in the film. Basically, in the opening a father burns his possessed daughter alive. The callback occurs when the characters enter the cabin's basement and come across a burned area. I immediately thought "righto, that's the spot where the girl was burned during the opening". No sooner had I finished my thought, a flashback of the girl burning pops up on screen. This film treats its audience like morons. I know how to connect dots, I've been doing it ever since I was a little kid for fucks sakes!
* After the inconsequential opening and before the deadites arrive, it feels as though you're watching an episode of 'Dawson's Crack Creek'... only worse (and that's saying something). When I watch an 'Evil Dead' movie, I don't want some soap opera bullshit about a drug addict and her estranged relationship with her brother. I want deadites killing people. Simples.
* Mia's brother talks to his sister in a really odd and creepy way and yet it's not meant to be odd and creepy, it's supposed to be heartwarming. He says shit like "you look beautiful, as always" and proceeds to reach out to her head, fakes pulling a necklace out from behind her ear and then gives it to her as a present.
Basically, remember the love scene between Ash and Linda on the sofa in the original film? Okay now imagine that they are actually brother and sister! Yeah, it's that fucking creepy. If I talked and acted like that with my sister, I'd expect her to run for the hills, screaming "fucking incest pervert"!
* Speaking of that necklace; it's the same hideous one from the original (the magnifying glass). Except in Raimi's film, that ugly ass necklace served a purpose; to ultimately allow Ash to destroy the book of the dead. Here though, it's nothing more than a moronic call back.
* The film looks like shit. It has that Platinum Dunes filter applied to it (as do 75% of all horror films these days, much to my annoyance). Everything looks as though the director took a piss on the film stock.
I endorse this statement. 'Battle Royale' is pure brilliance. It shits all over 'The Hunger Games' from a great height. Also, I recommend the manga adaptation (though buying all of the volumes is a bit costly; it's well worth it).
No Bruce Campbell.
Man I remember seeing the theatrical version when I was 12 and it has been my favorite movie ever since. The Director's Cut added a few of the extra scenes that were in the bonus material of the old DVD release (or even the LaserDisc). Some of them I love and some of them I don't.
What I didn't like about it was that they removed material from the original movie and by that the DC with all the added scenes is 1 minute shorter than the theatrical version. Really the movie was a masterpiece. You just don't cut things out of it. You just ruin it.
I don't think I'll watch the director's cut again because I like the original a lot more and also there is no score only audio track on the DC DVD.
Coming up next: The worst movie in the series: Aliens.
Actually, I wouldn't have minded the absence of Campbell had the reboot actually been a good film in its own right.
I couldn't agree more. How on Earth LV-246 Ridley deemed it a good idea to cut the superbly futile "what are my chances" scene is beyond me. Also, as interesting as the egg morphing addition is, it ruins the pacing something chronic.
Having said that, I did really like the addition of the alien dangling amongst the chains prior to killing Brett (blending in with it's mechanical surroundings - very Giger) and the alien hitting the cat box in a dismissive way towards the end.
You would have thought that Ridley would have taken the opportunity to sort out that horrendous cut between dummy Ash and Ian Holm though.
Ooohhh, controversial. Seriously though, I know where you're coming from. 'Aliens' turned a piece of art ('Alien') into a summer blockbuster, which does aggravate me quite a lot but I can't in good conscience say that I think it's worse than 'Alien: Resurrection' (which was one of those god awful self-parodies).
For me the order of 'Alien' films from best to worst is...
* 'Alien' (theatrical cut)
* 'Alien 3' (blu-ray assembly cut)
* 'Aliens' (special edition)
* 'Prometheus'
* 'Alien: Resurrection' (theatrical cut)
So just as planned today I saw Aliens. And for the first time ever the Theatrical Cut (since the 2000 DVD only had the Special Edition Cut on it).
That's 17 minutes of mostly backstory that were cut out for cinemas to basically get to the action faster.
We never hear about Ripley's Daughter (which will be replaced by Mocap Newt in this movie later to get an emotional connection or something). And we don't see how the colonists on the planet make the first contact with the AlienEggs that create the many many Aliens that we will encounter in the movie. So far so good.
Did we really need those scenes: I say yes. Those were the more enjoyable part of the movie. So it's good to have them. Even Though I really hate Mocap Newt. Edit: On the other hand going into the colony the first time without the extra scenes on the colony creates a completely different kind of suspense. You aren't sure what will happen while you know exactly what will happen with those scenes from the colony.
18 minutes in and everything is fine. And then we meet the marines and everything goes to shit.
I really don't care for them and they are only in there so that Cameron can make a comment about the Vietnam War. And here lies my problem with this movie. He basically ruined the whole series just to do this. He created the first batch of Horror movie assholes that everyone only wants to see slaughtered in the history of cinema.
Eli Roth surely took notes from that. Once these idiots come in my ability to care for anything in this movie dropped to zero.
Then the plot that makes Mocap Newt the replacement daughter for Ripley. I couldn't care less. And making her survive until the end just angered me. (Thank god Alien³ went back to the more atmospheric approach of the first movie and even got rid of the Newt problem asap.)
So yeah. This movie is average. And in the end it's not an Alien movie no matter how many of them you put in there. It's a repainted Vietnam War movie. And most people seem to like that. I mean the amount of people that tell me they love the Alien series and that Aliens is the best by far is huge. And then I ignore them and never ever speak to them again.
He was in the movie. He just wasn’t Ash and he only has one line.
What the frak is "Mocap Newt"?! There was no motion capture used for Carrie Henn's scenes. Although a dummy was used for the final act (in both the theatrical cut and the special edition). At least to the best of my knowledge.
If it weren't for the fact that I'd lose most of my real life friends if I took this approach, I'd be sorely tempted to do likewise.
Yeah, technically you're correct but well... I think you already know.
Oh it's a reference to the Mocap Dog that will be included in the next Call of Duty game (how fitting) so the player can have an emotional connection to the game (how fitting, same as Newt, again) and of course so they can murder the dog horribly in the end (unlike Newt).
Also I'd like Newt a lot more if most of her text in the second half of the movie wasn't just ear-melting screams.
They even look alike. Scary.
Edit:
I agree. Although, I do love Aliens. If you want to talk controversy, let's go into Terminator 2, where Cameron Lucased all over his own movie.
Aliens is still one of the most quotable movies of all time. So what if it's not a horror movie? I still think it's a great movie on it's own who's effects still hold up to this day!
I will say one other thing though. I felt the cast chemistry in Aliens was much better than Alien. Unlike Aliens, I didn't feel the experienced camaraderie the writers intended in Alien. I heard that intention in the interviews and was honestly confused. Watching Alien, I got the feeling that they barely worked with each other before.
MUCH better than 80% of James Wan’s films. The horror wasn’t over the top or bloody, it was actually quite suspenseful and the scares had good timing. An amazing horror film and the best I’ve seen in years.
’S alright.
Fun times. Pretty much everything I'd want from another Despicable Me. Would definitely watch again.
*thumbsup*
Not as good as Shaun of the Dead or Hot Fuzz, but it was ok.
Because yes, the Minions are totally the sole focus of the movie. Yep. That Gru fellow was nothing but a minor background character. No sense caring about what's going on with him or those little girls.
Giant Tope?
OH I have gazed upon the face of true brilliance this day and it's name is....
...Oh, whatever! EAT MY ASS. Seriously that's the stupidest argument for a movie I've ever heard.
One of the characters destroys a wall! OHOHOHOHOHOHOH
And they fall out of the house! AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA BRILLIANCE.
DAYDREAMING ABOUT SOMEONE ELSE!? STOP I'LL BUST MY GUTS EVERYWHERE. OH PLEASE STOP.
PLEASE.
PLEASE!
[starts laughing so hard I VOMIT BLOOD!!!!!]
Look you don't have to agree with me but at least they put some more jokes for the minions that wasn't hitting each other. Exactly where did I mention in my comment ''Oh the minion jokes are the best part?'' I didn't mention anything like that. I simply said that to be fair they had more jokes that was not them hitting themselves. The movie in my opinion was good for its characters and story not minion jokes. All I said was the minion jokes were a little better than the first movie because it was not just them hitting each other.
Edit: You also don't have to be so damn sarcastic, again I didn't mention anywhere that these jokes were the funniest in the movie, these are examples I gave that they just didn't use jokes that included them hitting each other and just keep in mind that before I seen the movie, I was not that excited from watching the trailers because it seemed like it was just a couple of fart jokes but when I seen the movie I liked it because it did have good jokes,good story and likeable characters.
I'm done. Fuck movies. I'm fucking done with these fucking movies. There's no good movies anymore and people can fucking like and enjoy whatever. Fuck em.
Can't like anything good anymore.
On another note, Again I didn't mention that the minion jokes were better than the first film but I do believe its a step up because at least they tried some new jokes with the minions. In the first movie the minions just kept hitting each other for comedy and that just got old after a few times.
And frankly, I need to stop giving these things chances. Shoving forced sentimentality into the climax with some vague wide-market middle-American message about family or growing up or raising a child or some shit into a film that is otherwise about farts and how funny it is to see a guy hit in the crotch is apparently enough to make people think there's something more to a dumbed-down, mass market kids' film made to sell merchandise.
EDIT: Almost forgot the reason I came to this thread.
Pacific Rim
Now, this was a pretty good movie. I wasn't expecting to really enjoy it as much as I did, but it was very well put together and really deserved more attention than fucking Grown Ups 2. I wasn't expecting to care about the characters and the outcomes of giant robot fights as much as I did, which is a total kudos to this film. There were a lot of archetypal characters in this movie... but they were used well and were memorable enough for me to care about their fate as well as having very nice connections that were well illustrated.
Honestly, I think this movie had the things that Man of Steel lacked. It had heart and soul and I could feel it in the movie. Because of the connection forged between the audience and the people involved and the slightly slower pace of the action sequences, each fight felt like it had weight and wasn't just filler in between explosions. The Kaiju felt like a legitimate threat, the changes in society felt like a sensible reaction to giant seamonsters popping up all over the place. And I left the theater wanting to know more, wanting to see a bit more of this world that they created.
Sure there were problems. There's a few bizarre plot things that feel like a scene got cut from the movie but they just kept barreling along with it anyways and it requires a bit of suspension of disbelief to accept that the worlds' governments carefully analyzed their seamonster problem and decided the best solution was giant robots. But these are fairly minor in the face of the fact that the whole experience was solidly put together and enjoyable to watch.