Mama Mia! is really a film made exclusively for Abba fans, it lacks much depth, the songs work, but the film's plot ultimately fits in to the category of a loosely constructed plot around the music. There have been many other films to do a similar thing much better (Moulin Rouge, for instance). Mama Mia has a few great lines and some funny moments, but ultimately gets lost in it's own rediculousness. The film really felt like an extended youtube lip syncing video with ludicrous choreography. Guys, if Abba and A TON of half naked 20 year old guys doesn't sound good to you, don't let your girlfriend/wife talk you into viewing this steaming pile.
Reviews
8 Reviews
Transformers
(2007)
great movie for the summer heat, but felt a tiny bit lacking
5 July 2007
first of all, the michael bay's editing has taken a huge amount of flak over the frenetic feel of the action sequences. I would like to point out that the movie was from a human perspective, we see the battles as a bystander would, does it make for as cool a film? Not really, but the objective served it's purpose, it was a decision that added cohesion to the film. All in all it was a great movie that deserves kudos for a conversion that pleases both fans and non-fans alike. My only complaint is that the movie occasionally didn't know whether it should take it's source material seriously or just have fun with it, which is a common problem in many newer comic-book/cartoon based films (especially FF4 and spider-man 3). The film is well done, if you have a gripe, tell me, what would have made it better, cause I see no way bay should have done any differently.
Spider-Man 3
(2007)
Both the best and worst of the trilogy
7 May 2007
In terms of action, music, sheer scope, and complexity of story, Spider-Man 3 just about blows it's predecessors out of the water. This film finally delivers some of the dark feel that moves the comic-book genre away from children. With these pros in mind, the cons really detracted from the film. We saw a departure from good script writing for broad story (as in X3, only not nearly as bad). Some of the scenes just got flat out ridiculous, but never really hurt the whole feel of the film, it just kinda shocked you out of engrossment. This movie is not as likely to please as the last two, which made the superhero genre a good measure better. I have a feeling that the studio pressured Sam Raimi into making the film as big in scope as it was, but Raimi still pulled all the loose ends together masterfully. Bravo. The only people who should be angry about this film are comic-book junkies (Some films change superhero story lines for the better, guys) and people who are fed up with the super-hero glut of films (the world would be a better place without the likes of Ghost Rider and Fantastic Four). Overall, it was very enjoyable and still stands as one of the better examples of what a superhero film should be.
Superman Returns
(2006)
Screw the downer reviews, Superman Returns is a real achievement
6 January 2007
I know this review is posted a little late, but allow me to get this off my chest. First off, I would like to address the universal idea of the plot being atrocious, it's not. The plot is epic and sweeping, the script was clearly designed to be a tribute to the marvelously corny dialogue of the richard donner films. I would also like to point out that conceptually I HATE the idea of Superman. He is a character who is so utterly powerful that the only way he can really be vulnerable is through shards of his home planet(ludicrous) or through lois lane. What Brian Singer has done here, is he has managed to make a Superman hater herald Superman Returns as the second greatest comic book film ever, shortly following Batman Begins. From the first frame to the last, superman is packed with thrills, frills, and is a generally epic movie.
Saw II
(2005)
Terrible, but marginally better than the first
2 August 2006
The Saw franchise suffers from everything. From poor screenplays to bad acting to worse directing. This movie takes some of the creepy ideals cherished by Kevin spacey in Se7en (a fantastic flick) and executes them in a generally brainless, uninspired, gore-fest. Just about the same as the first. The only difference, however, is Saw 2 does not suffer the same cast. Let us not forget that Carey Elwes is a fantastic COMEDY actor, he never should have been cast in a movie like saw. So, better cast, slightly more intriguing story make for a marginally less craptacular film. If you must see this, convince a friend without movie standards to either rent or buy, never waste your own money on this sad excuse for a film (still better than a Uwe Boll flick).
X-Men: The Last Stand
(2006)
A generally enjoyable film with a few major flaws
27 May 2006
First off, X-Men: The Last Stand was by no means "drivel." In combination with the previous ventures, moviegoers and fans will receive a decent whole. The plot itself is not convoluted, but there are numerous mini-plots for just about every other character in the film. The huge number of plot lines Ratner chose to cast wound up limiting the film, removing key emotional elements. The film just was not long enough to adequately cover everyone's story. The music did not add anything to the movie either, it seemed tacky and amateur. Through length, plot numbers and music, X3 failed to properly and satisfyingly tie up the trilogy.
Problems aside, X-Men did succeed in creating a fabulous action-driven film. Ratner and Fox worked magic on the special effects side of things. I was particularly impressed with the opening scene, which found a 20 year younger Xavier and Eric (Stewart and McKellan) at the house of Jean Grey.
Despite being somewhat of a letdown, the film does bring in some interesting parallelism to the first two films. Speaking of the first films, I recommend viewing them right before or soon after seeing the third, as viewing them reminds you that you do care about the characters (being underdeveloped in X3). Most should find the third entry reasonably enjoyable and miles ahead of poorer entries into the superhero genre (Fantastic Four, League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, Ultraviolet, and the extraordinarily bad Batman Forever and Batman and Robin).
Problems aside, X-Men did succeed in creating a fabulous action-driven film. Ratner and Fox worked magic on the special effects side of things. I was particularly impressed with the opening scene, which found a 20 year younger Xavier and Eric (Stewart and McKellan) at the house of Jean Grey.
Despite being somewhat of a letdown, the film does bring in some interesting parallelism to the first two films. Speaking of the first films, I recommend viewing them right before or soon after seeing the third, as viewing them reminds you that you do care about the characters (being underdeveloped in X3). Most should find the third entry reasonably enjoyable and miles ahead of poorer entries into the superhero genre (Fantastic Four, League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, Ultraviolet, and the extraordinarily bad Batman Forever and Batman and Robin).
Alexander
(2004)
This is the best acted piece of crap ever to hit the silver screen
27 April 2006
Alaxander is not an intelligent movie. From the director of "Natural Born Killers" one expects a certain level of directorial expertise that does not happen in this movie. Alaxander suffers greatly from pacing issues and an overly modern perspective of the great general. I found myself glancing at my watch before the first battle. Most suffering is thanks only to Oliver Stone's obsession with making the character homosexual and obnoxiously idealistic. His portrayal as a homosexual was not distressing from a historical view (Many Greeks and Macedonians of the time viewed women as child bearers only, not love worthy), but was instead distressing due to the immense focus it received. Alaxander became more a movie about same-sex love than it did about the events through his life. The biggest problem I had with the movie, though, is the terrible camera work during battles. Shaky cameras were overused to produce battles that looked as though they were filmed during a hurricane. Other artistic interpretations detracted from the visceral moments found therein. During the final battle we find the images have changed to shades of red, pink, and purple; not a good choice for any battle scene.
The acting, however, was brilliant. I was very happy to see Val Kilmer once again in a major picture. No one stood out as tacky in their portrayals and all did a phenomenal job. The character accents were obnoxious though (Stone's fault).
I would not recommend this movie to anyone, there are far better historical war movies than Alexander.
The acting, however, was brilliant. I was very happy to see Val Kilmer once again in a major picture. No one stood out as tacky in their portrayals and all did a phenomenal job. The character accents were obnoxious though (Stone's fault).
I would not recommend this movie to anyone, there are far better historical war movies than Alexander.
Batman Begins
(2005)
Best Batman
8 April 2006
Batman is a franchise that was nearly ruined in the Joel Schumacher days. I have been a fan of the 90's animated series, Tim Burton films, and the comic books to a limited extent. Batman Begins redeems the entire franchise from movies to animated series in recent days.
The movie opens with Bruce as a child falling into a well housing bats. Maybe a tiny bit hokey, but this new "fear" explanation works better than just taking the Burton route and just leaving his origins alone.
Action sequences are often handled using close ups, the kind often seen in movies like Braveheart or Gladiator. The problem with close ups is that it can be hard to tell what is happening on screen. The DVD explains that the shots were designed to put the audience in the mind of the villains. We are having just as hard a time telling where he is going to hit as they will. Artistic, but maybe a little too much.
My only real problems with the movie lie with the microwave emitter. Firstly, the emitter should be "cooking" everyone within it's range or beam or whatever; and Second, When the toxin is released into the air, none of the people attack each other, they act as a zombie mob wanting to attack only those not afflicted by the hallucinogen.
My gripes are only minor and can easily by the sheer genius of the film's undertaking. Everyone except Katie Holmes shone on screen giving the first real glimpse into the life of Batman as seen on film.
The movie opens with Bruce as a child falling into a well housing bats. Maybe a tiny bit hokey, but this new "fear" explanation works better than just taking the Burton route and just leaving his origins alone.
Action sequences are often handled using close ups, the kind often seen in movies like Braveheart or Gladiator. The problem with close ups is that it can be hard to tell what is happening on screen. The DVD explains that the shots were designed to put the audience in the mind of the villains. We are having just as hard a time telling where he is going to hit as they will. Artistic, but maybe a little too much.
My only real problems with the movie lie with the microwave emitter. Firstly, the emitter should be "cooking" everyone within it's range or beam or whatever; and Second, When the toxin is released into the air, none of the people attack each other, they act as a zombie mob wanting to attack only those not afflicted by the hallucinogen.
My gripes are only minor and can easily by the sheer genius of the film's undertaking. Everyone except Katie Holmes shone on screen giving the first real glimpse into the life of Batman as seen on film.
Tell Your Friends