When I am an early viewer of a movie I like to warn people, to let them know what they should expect so, here goes: After watching 1 hour of this movie it all became clear to me...they had a budget,they hired the crew, they rented the plane,they paid the cast and when it was far too late they remembered....the effects! Mr Shimizu, the director, as an ingenious Japanese man that he is, came up with the solution: I need a man with a face and at least a hand, and 3 or 4 smoke grenades..and done. There are no special effects whatsoever and no really scary parts,so if they would have tried a little this would've made for a good thriller. I am not saying this is a bad movie, the first 40 minutes were good, you get to know the characters, you get a feel for the atmosphere aboard the plane, you get excited for what's about to happen...then the credits come on! This should have been a horror movie where the fun begins when people start dying and there is nothing they can do about it, but this feels like a documentary about what happens when vital equipment malfunctions, like an 1 hour true story Discovery movie. Some might find it terrifying, but I'm guessing the target audience is people with aerophobia, it's like making claustrophobic people watch The Cube.. My conclusion is: you will be disappointed, more or less depending on how big of a horror fan you are..
Reviews
3 Reviews
Catch .44
(2011)
Not bad
2 December 2011
So I got to see Catch .44 the other day and I was curious what Bruce Willis and Forest Whitaker were doing in the same movie...the conclusion was that Bruce wasn't doing much... He's the guy for the poster, who gets people in cinemas like the recent flow with Pacino ( The son of no one)and De Niro(Limitless), his part in the movie is of an evil Charlie with evil angels and his whole screen time is of 5 minutes tops. On the other hand there is Forest, Forest Whitaker who makes this movie much more entertaining then it really is, playing a No country for old men kind of character but really getting into the role and giving a really good performance. So the acting was good and the script was OK but my impression was that they could have done more if they had put more effort into it, it could have been great, and that's not a small thing for 2011... There isn't actually a lot to talk about, it had a little twist in the end which I liked but the ending is kind of given away if you pay attention to the movie so in the middle of the action you ask yourself how does it come to what I just saw...won't give away more because I don't want to spoil it for you. My recommendation is to see the movie because it's not a waste of time/money. I'm giving a 7/10 because of the wasted potential...
Drive Angry
(2011)
among the worst
18 May 2011
First of all i would to congratulate William Fichtner or Mahone as I remember him for his part in the movie and his acting, and that's enough for the good parts.In the past 10 years I think I have seen 1000 movies but I write reviews only for the worst and this one wins my Oscar. I think my problem was that I didn't see it 3D, but still that wouldn't have changed the script which was the worst part of the movie. The whole plot was weak,the negative characters weren't clear till the end of the movie,the good guy wasn't so good but I guess that was their purpose.As a whole, the movie didn't add up.As for Cage, you can see that he doesn't get to choose his roles lately cause he can't go higher than lord of war or lower than this.I am not a big fan of Cage but he can do better than this or maybe he's getting too old for this sh(enanigan).If you pay attention to the movie you'll see some bad effects(saw it in 2d I repeat)I mean car backgrounds; their hair looked like it was contoured by kindergarten children on their drawing boards,I will stop here because the longer I write the more time this movie wastes of my life and I won't give it the satisfaction. I understand how some people like it cause of the free violence and many nudity scenes but it didn't do it for me.
Tell Your Friends