Nothing too fancy, just simple opinions from an average guy...
Honestly, I had mixed feelings about the film. I really enjoyed the performances of Mel Gibson and Ray Winstone. I felt that Gibson`s portrayal of a grief stricken cop who has lost the most important person in his life is very subtle and moving. However, the plot of the actual conspiracy and reason she is murdered seems to be an afterthought. It`s thinly developed and not very interesting (the concept is, but not the way that it`s presented in this film).
THE PLOT = HERO wants to kill VILLAIN, who killed HERO`S DAUGHTER for GENERIC REASON #1. This may have come from the actual script...
Basically, this is a movie about a man who loses his daughter set to the backdrop of a barely-explained conspiracy. If you like dramas and go in expecting something of that nature, you`ll probably enjoy the film, but I could have definitely waited for it on video.
Have you seen it? What did you think? Is Mel Gibson still one of Hollywood`s top leading men, or is he way past his prime? Let me know...
.
.
.
The book Eli carries is a King James Bible. Book of Eli is a movie about faith and the power of religion and the word of God to be a corrupting or light-bringing force in the world. Carnegie (Oldman) wants the book as a means to control and rule over people, while Eli is a devout Christian on a journey of faith. Throw in some wonderful action scenes and great visuals and you have yourself one great movie.
Some may say that this film is too violent for Christians and too Christian for action fans. I strongly disagree. I`m a Christian and love a great action movie. That being said, if you are a Christian and would refuse a film containing a lot of violence and language (no language from Eli, the Christian man, but much from the other characters) then this may not be for you. If you are an action fan and would be offended by some religious themes (the film doesn`t beat you over the head with it, but Eli`s faith is definitely a major part of the plot) then this may not be for you. If those caveats don`t apply, then I definitely recommend that you check out The Book of Eli.
Let me know what you think... Can a violent film have spiritual aspects? Seen the film? Like or dislike?
I found Old Dogs to be a poorly conceived, poorly written, and poorly acted movie. To me, it felt like one of those films where a group of actors who are friends made a movie just as an excuse to hang out together. I thought that this movie had a lot of potential considering all of the talent attached to the project, but I expected much more from Robin Williams and John Travolta. It had a few funny scenes, but for the most part, this film was quite a disappointment. In fact, I found it downright idiotic at times (and not in a good way that makes you laugh, in a way that makes you want your money and your hour and a half back). Not nearly as entertaining as Travolta`s Wild Hogs or RV for Robin Williams.
THE ULTIMATE DISASTER MOVIE…
2012 probably has the most incredible special effects that I have ever seen. During most effects driven films, there are moments where you “see the seams.” This is not the case here. There were very few moments when you could even tell that what you were seeing was computer generated. And since the special effects disasters played the antagonist’s role in the film, we get to see these incredible sights during almost every scene.
In regards to the actual plot, it was an absolute thrill-ride. The pace of the film is relentless and keeps your heart pounding throughout it’s entire two and a half hours without making you wonder when this thing is going to end (which I did feel a little during films like Transformers 2). The acting was sub-par in places, but John Cusack is always great, and I really enjoy Chiwetel Ejiofor (he’s an up-and-comer, even though I can’t pronounce his name). Were there a few plot holes and unbelievable coincidences?...in a few spots, but nothing as bad as Transformers or Terminator Salvation. Was the science accurate?...probably not. Do we care?...unless you`re a geologist...probably not.
Yes…the acting wasn’t oscar-worthy, and there were some extremely far-fetched moments (ie: limo drives through falling building, very cool but not believable). But remember it’s called escapism, not realism. If you want reality, go sit on your front porch and watch the grass grow and the birds sing or sit on a park bench and watch people walk by. If you want to see stuff blow up, go see 2012.
First of all, if you’re in a hurry, just leave with this: avoid this film. If you want to know more, see below…
This review has to be separated into two parts. The first part is my initial reaction to the film. The second is my reaction after learning more info about the film. Read on and see what I mean.
On first viewing, I don’t know if I would say The Fourth Kind was the scariest film I had ever seen, but it was definitely the most disturbing. The reason was that I believed that the film was a true story based upon real footage and events (as it claimed to be during the movie and in promotional materials). This added a new level of terror for me. In fact, based upon some of the events that took place during the film, I left the theatre wondering whether the people in the film had experienced an encounter with aliens or if they had actually fought against a demon or the devil himself. In my mind, this could have explained some of the logic problems and things that the “entity” said during the film. If the events of the film were true, and if they were in fact “touched by a devil”, that would mean that during the course of the film (during the archive footage) I actually heard the voice of Satan. I found that prospect extremely unsettling.
But whether they encountered aliens or demons, thinking that the footage shown as “real” in the film was genuine presented an utterly disturbing concept. The film itself had some scary moments, but the film’s implications were truly frightening. As I said…if it was real….
After some further research, I discovered that it was not. The film is a fake, a hoax, a sham. It’s an hour and a half long deception. A lie. Learning this fact was extremely upsetting. I can’t judge the film on its merits now. Whether it was good or bad doesn’t matter, because now when I think of the film, I feel cheated and disappointed. There were some logic issues, but for the most part, the film does a good job of convincing you that it is real. The deception was especially clever in the way that they cast Milla Jovovich to play the much-less-attractive Dr. Abigail Tyler (who appears in the film as herself, even though she’s an actress as well). And also the way that they put subtitles around events during the film (Actor Will Patton as Sheriff Whoever, etc) like your watching a reenactment on Unsolved Mysteries or Dateline or The History Channel. This is, of course, all part of the deception. I shudder to think what people might have thought about this film before everyone could pull up a thousand stories on their iPhones that expose the film as a fake. It might have been a real Orson Welles type of moment.
In the end, the only thing I can say is that it does a good job at deceiving you. Strip out the documentary aspect and you’ve got a half-realized, second-rate movie. Basically, this movie centered on a gimmick. It’s nothing without the deception. I realize that this is a marketing ploy, and other films such as Paranormal Activity and The Blair Witch Project have presented material in a similar way. The difference is that they didn’t represent the material as being genuine. They didn’t actively try to deceive the audience. They shot the material in such a way to make it seem authentic and then left the audience to wonder. The Fourth Kind blatantly lies to the audience, and judging by the reactions I have read online, I am not the only person that feels cheated.
That`s my opinion, but what do you think? Is it okay for a movie to lie to its audience? Is it unethical and essentially false advertising for a movie to be marketed as "based on a true story" when the story is fictional? How far can Hollywood push the boundaries of the creative license?
That being said, I ABSOLUTELY LOVED G.I. Joe. If you want a high-adrenaline action movie, then this one is for you. In fact, for the most part, I enjoyed Joe more than Transformers. Also, while I obviously look at things from a guy`s perspective, my wife really enjoyed this film and commented that she didn`t think it was too "cartoony", which was also a worry of mine. Is it going to win any Oscars? Absolutely not. Was it hokey and cliche at some points? Yes. Was there some bad acting/dialogue? At times, but no worse than the average summer action flick. Was it a whole lotta fun, jammed full of action, and thoroughly entertaining? Yes, it absolutely was.
FOR THE KIDS?
I went and saw it with my wife, and then took my daughter to see it the next day. There was a lot of violence and a few minor swear words, but they weren`t excessive and unnecessary like they were in Transformers. Also, other than some tight/revealing outfits, there was no sexual content (which can`t be said about Transformers). Basically, as a parent, there were moments that I cringed during Transformers. This wasn`t the case with G.I. Joe.
The Cast:
I thought that all the cast did fairly good jobs. They also didn`t break out the entire Joe lineup. They kept the main characters to a select few, which allowed you to be more attached to all of the main players. I thought that Sienna Miller, Channing Tatum, Marlon Wayans, and Rachel Nichols were especially entertaining. One great point in favor of G.I. Joe, especially over Transformers (which failed miserably in this regard), was that it didn`t try too hard to be funny. Wayans garnered some chuckles that broke the tension, but there were no over the top attempts at humor. Actually, my only real acting/casting complaint was with Dennis Quaid. Quaid was the biggest name in the film and did the worst job. He really dialed this one. Dennis Quaid = "Go Joe!...Now gimme my paycheck." Luckily, he wasn`t in the movie that much.
Special Effects:
The heavy CGI effects were basically a cast member and a huge part of the movie. At times, the effects and visuals were incredible. At times, they were kinda fake. I agree with some other comments that I`ve heard stating surprise at a 175 million dollar price tag and effects that were lacking in a few instances. Overall, though, the effects were pretty good. I`d give it a B+ for the special effects. Not up to par with Transformers in the effects department, but it outshines Transformers in many other areas.
FOR THE FANS:
From a fan standpoint, I was pleased with the way it turned out. They changed some of the characters, but nothing that was offensive to the series, and they definitely had the cool vehicles and weapons that G.I. Joe is known for. I especially liked the use of the Night Raven, which was one of the cooler of the old toys.
In conclusion..."GO, JOE!"
Overall, I really liked the film and actually (on first viewing) thought that it was definitely as good as the first film, if not better. Although, I went into the theater with extremely high hopes for the first film, and it let me down. With this film, I knew what to expect, so it wasn’t such a big let down for me.
So, what was great about it: action, special effects, Decepticons had a little more personality (could tell some of them apart this time), Optimus Prime. What was terrible: Mudflap and Skids (the new Jar Jar Binks brothers of Transformers 2, see below), JetFire (see below), overly long, needs more Transformers and less Shia (not saying Shia was bad, just no comparison to cool-ass, giant, alien robots), plot holes, lots of unnecessary profanity (and humping).
The worst parts of the film were the unfunny attempts at comic relief. Why does Hollywood insist on trying to make these movies funny? The two characters that keep trying to be funny throughout the whole film (and fail miserably) are Mudflap and Skids, or as I like to call them the Jar Jar Binks brothers. These guys said one funny line out of a bunch of attempts and are being labeled by many as racial stereotypes. I can definitely see how someone would be upset by the apparent ethnicity (even though robots don’t have ethnicity, it’s implied) of these two, but my main complaint is that they’re just not funny…at all. They did manage, however, to steal the Jar Jar name from John Turturro, who wasn’t too terribly awful in this installment.
Another bad point about the film is the amount of profanity. I’m not against having profanity in movies, if it fits the scene and the film. This movie, however, has a huge amount of unnecessary cussing. Did someone forget that this is a film based upon a line of toys, cartoons, and comics and has a current line of toys aimed at young boys? Did you forget that kids, especially young boys, are going to see this movie? I had my ten-year-old daughter with me in the theatre, and there were many, many moments that I cringed at the content in this film. I know what some of you are thinking…violence is ok for kids, but cussing isn’t. To you I say, that’s right…it is. While violent, the war scenes aren’t bloody like Saving Private Ryan, and I can’t remember any actual deaths being shown (not saying there weren’t, but none stuck with me).
There were also several scratch-your-head moments that took you out of the experience. Examples: Sam states that Einstein is wrong and has apparently become a super genius. He then has several mental breakdowns. After this, he has no more breakdowns and the abundance of knowledge gained from the cube apparently disappears, because it never comes into play again (except for the symbols). Another moment is when they go to the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum. I`ve been to the Smithsonian and I don`t remember any planes outside, and I also don`t remember downtown DC being a rural area. Not sure what they were thinking on that.
--SPOILER - BUT HARDCORE FANS NEED TO HEAR IT and PREPARE THEMSELVES--
JetFire, say it ain’t so. {weeping on keyboard…} This is the second time this summer that a great character from the source material has been severely raped by Hollywood. The first was Dead Pool in Wolverine, and now JetFire. If you are unfamiliar with JetFire, he was one of the coolest Autobots around and one of my favorites as a boy (I still have my Generation 1 JetFire. He’s missing an arm, but still.). In this film, however, they make JetFire an old man with a cane and then {SPOILER} kill him off. What did JetFire and his fans do to Michael Bay to deserve such treatment? This almost ruined the whole film for me. “Here, I’ve got an idea, let’s remake Star Wars, but replace Chewbacca with Barney,” says the out-of-touch Hollywood producer.
--END SPOILER—
In conclusion, be prepared for lots of action and incredible special effects, but also be prepared for some terrible attempts at humor and some disappointments for fans of the original Transformers.
I think that with a series such as this, however, you have to either look at the film as if you`ve never seen the others, or look at it as just another chapter in the saga. I don`t think that it`s fair to compare it to the other films. First of all, the first film in a series like this is always the best. This is due to the fact that the first film blows your mind by establishing a cool, new concept (think of the Matrix films). Every film that comes after the first is just building on the mythology, unless it drastically redefines the original concept and makes it even cooler (think Star Trek). If the writers try to change the concept, however, then they run the risk of pissing off the fans. It`s really a fine line that has to be walked, staying true to the original while pushing the boundaries.
So, did Terminator Salvation push the boundaries or redefine the series in a cool new way? Not too much. Was it a cool new chapter in the saga? I think so.
SPOILER ALERT----READ ON IF YOU"VE SEEN THE FILM----
I liked the throwbacks to the other films: young Kyle saying "Come with me if you want to live", Connor saying "I`ll be back", scene where they pull up to the gas station, Arnold (although I thought his face looked very fake), and others.
Questions and issues to discuss if you`ve already seen the film:
Why does Marcus still have a real heart? You could say that the human spirit is found in the heart, but does that mean that people with pacemakers are soulless zombies? How do they know that his heart will be a compatible donor for Connor? They can perform a heart transplant in a field hospital? Why couldn`t they rig up an artificial heart for Marcus or take a heart from one of their many casualties? Why doesn`t SkyNet just kill Kyle Reese the moment they find him? Wouldn`t that have killed Connor instantly? Why does the T-800 knock Connor around instead of just running its fist into his chest and crushing his heart? Why doesn`t SkyNet have an override control in Marcus? Why is SkyNet taking everyone hostage (only to lure Connor)? If the signal to the SkyNet "mothership" is lost, wouldn`t the machines just act on their base programming? How can Marcus trade blows with the T-800 in one scene and then need help carrying Connor in the next?
I think the filmmakers should have asked these questions before making the movie. Well, those are my thoughts and opinions…leave a comment and let me know yours.