Change Your Image
whitakeroh
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
John Wick: Chapter 2 (2017)
Wick 2 Goes Hard but Lacks the Emotional Connection of the First
John Wick 2 goes hard in the paint. It broadens the universe of Wick and pierces the veil of a shadowy assassin world. The plot is fairly cliché but let's face it, you came here to see Neo, I mean John Wick, kick some butt and take names. And this he does, over and over and over. To the point where it actually undermines this movie because he kills so many people and yet all these dozens of men and assassins fail to shoot him even when they have the drop on him. The massive of amount of killing without police being anywhere present is irksome. What's the point of an assassassin and everyone is an assassin and there is one cop in the known world named Jimmy?
Classic action movie in that regard? Yes, but what made Wick 1 so cool was Wicks' personal hurt- this was the film taking a moment to build Wick's deep down good nature and build his character. This makes us connect with him. Wick 1 was brilliant in the idea of the dead wife giving Wick back his humanity in her death through the gift of an innocent puppy that's then viciously murdered. Not here. In this movie Wick just says no honoring a past commitment. He breaks the rules himself. So you lose that emotional connection. Heck, the movie opens up with him creating massive havoc for his car. Not indicative of any retirement which the movie tries to shove down your throat as to why Wick is a victim to this. He's a brilliant and deadly assassin and he can't see a clear double cross coming? Also the double cross is simply a silly plot device. It's not explained well and the double cross only serves to suggest these people are dumb. In fact, there's no reason for the double cross but it's done anyway for a silly reason that makes no sense in light of the known likely consequences. See it and you'll see.
Also, in this movie the universe becomes way more comic bookish- seems like they are interested in licensing Wick to lesser mediums. Wick would be so much cooler if they scaled down the world, made the assassins rare and assassinations rarer. This would increase Wicks' appeal. Seems now everyone in the Wick universe is an assassin. From random subway violin players to garbage men and beggars- all assassins and every single person's phone rings in New York at the same time. So if everyone is an assassin then why do we have assassains? Since there is no fear of death apparently, how do these people live for even 10 minutes? Who exactly do they assassinate when everyone is an assassin? The end of the movie had me shaking my head. I see they are trying to build a Wick universe for further media product development and thus lucrative IP deals.
So, Wick 2's action is TOP PAR. Keanu is on his game, no doubt. But it's not as intimate as the first and tend to become silly and redundant. The story is simply starting to become a Marvel property which is a shame. The end is silly. A lot of silly stuff here and way too much of it. It definitely lacks the intimate, hard hitting emotional punch that Wick 1 had.
There are so many incompetent assassins everywhere that the whole things becomes unbelievable. A contract goes out on Wick and then all of a sudden everybody is an assassin. This just limits the emotional visceral feeling the first one gave you in favor of all action.
However, I can't say enough about the movie that the action is top notch and I highly recommend it.
The Grey (2011)
Deeper movie for the bubblegum masses
Apparently many IMDb reviewers like all their movies straight without cream and sugar and no deeper meaning.
The Grey is fantastic. Period. Yes- the wolves and some of the decisions of the survivors is laughably bad. No doubt. That is really only about 2% of The Grey. It seems that can't be true but if you watch the movie it is.
Once more unto the fray is a battle cry that harks back to and is modified from Shakespeare's Henry V. The movie presents a singularly dark world mixed with pain, death, the cold, hungry predators, pointlessness, drowning, etc., but all to help the viewer swallow the carefully crafted dystopia of Neeson's character's soul. This movie is WAY more like "The Road" then "The Edge" or "San Andreas"
Go see it and look past the first obvious level. If you can pierce the veil, you will see the goodness of this movie.
Eat Pray Love (2010)
Women Have No More Honor
Just like Sex in the City, this film glorifies female borderline personality disorder. This film highlights fundamental flaws and defects in a woman's character and frames them as character assets. The film starts out with a pampered princess who has a loving and decently handsome husband who falls over himself for his wife (Julia) yet she is discontent due to major character flaws which are likely attributable to selfishness, self-centeredness and arrogance so she she decided to go "find" herself with foreign lovers while eating Italian food.
If this movie's main protagonist were a male, oh my God, could you imagine the female response? A male leaves his adoring, attractive wife to go bang foreign chicks while eating food? He would be considered a complete pig and further considered to be worth killing. These romcoms are now depicting women as these spoiled, privileged brats who are entitled to leave everybody else miserable while they "find themselves". And the people they destroy both mentally and emotionally still "understand" that their torturer is just finding herself. These movies continue to portray hurtful and harmful behavior as a "spiritual awakening". Julia Roberts plays the role of a spoiled, arrogant brat who is full of herself. After her jaunt to India maybe she wants to go join the other vapid female crew over in Dubai for a walk in the desert with no water.
In typical romcom fashion we have the arrogant female who leaves a trail of emotional wreckage in her wake (which we're supposed to discount completely as a sacrifice to the greater good of the female) while she searches the world for hippies, food and lovers. We have these sorry sack men who continue to tell her how great and special she is although she is the complete opposite of these things. We have arrogance and selfishness put on display and covered with a false veil of gold. This woman should be in court losing 1/2 of all her earnings to her husband whom she left to go whore about for no good reason. This woman should be the scourge of the Earth and should receive social contempt for her behavior. However, like most romcoms the female can hurt everyone she knows if it will aid her superficial quest for some kind of make believe fulfillment and then, like Stockholm Syndrome, all her victims will forgive her or tell her she is the most important thing in the world and her happiness comes before anybody or anything else. I can't believe men are still depicted as the heartless characters in films when every romcom depicts evil as good.
This movie made me cringe. I was forced to see it with mom, sister and wife. I told them all that the film literally made me sick. They agreed. This sort of behavior that is being engendered into women is sickening. Women who believe such a film represents anything positive about anything need to have their head checked for borderline personality disorder. Men need to stop treating women like little precious pieces of glass when those same women are not pieces of glass, are not these cute little powerless creatures but are instead, like Liz in the movie, arrogant, snotty, pampered, privileged, rude, morally bankrupt, conniving, selfish dolts who believe that their superficial happiness is worth any emotional cost to other people.
Sex and the City (2008)
The End of Anything Honorable About Western Women
When I was a young boy I remember being around women like my mother, grandmother, sister, aunts, cousins, friends. I remembered that women were kind and generous and caring.
As I got older (I am now 27) a peculiar shift in women occurred. For one I started to like them obviously but secondly I noticed that women started to become pompous arrogant divas. I was about 19 when I started to realize that the typical American woman is one of the most spoiled, arrogant, selfish people the world has ever really known. What was the reason for this I wondered.
As I went through college I paid attention to women's behavior whom I went on dates with, whom I dated for long periods, and whom I worked with and was friends with. I notice that most young women are very, very similar and they incorrectly think their "free spirits" when, in fact, their hearts and souls are owned by industry and shallow trinkets. Why? One reason: Movies and TV shows like Sex and the City, People magazine, America's Next Top Model, All things MTV, Celebrities, etc. Suburban white girls who suffer from PPS (Pampered Princess Syndrome) This movie possibly represents all that is wrong with the woman America is producing. It also reflects the pathetic depths to which once proud American men have sank to in order to appease Ms. Princess. This movie celebrates being a high priced whore, what a great message for young women. I thought we were supposed to encourage, "being yourself and having high self esteem" funny really, that women create images for themselves that are the opposite of what they preach.
Why was this movie made? The cast is awful, the plot is non-existent. The message is horrible and the reality is that shows and movies like SATC create a false sense of reality. Any men who are reading this must agree with me. In fact most men I know, that have not been conquered by SATC NYC princesses, decidedly are disappointed with the quality of American women. I must believe it is due to the filth which they idealize, such filth being espoused as the pinnacle of happiness for women in movies like SATC. Unbelievable. I despise this movie with intense passion.
DO EVERYTHING YOU CAN FIRST AND FOREMOST AS A FATHER TO DISSUADE YOUR WIFE AND/OR DAUGHTER FROM SEEING THIS.
How sad it is that American women inwardly wish they lived like the women in SATC. Pathetic.
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008)
Atrocious
I am 27 years old and have been a fan of Indiana Jones since I was a child. I loved Indiana Jones because I loved the adventure seeking coupled with the realistic daring of Indiana Jones himself.
This film, Indy Jones 4, contains none of the qualities which so thoroughly impressed me in my youth. I grant that it is possible my expectations may have been somewhat distorted due to me being older and more critical but I will not submit that I am so jaded that my critique of Indy Jones 4 is unfounded and is due to those youthful memories free from critique. There are core elements of Indy Jones which are plain out missing here. I will point out some of the faults in detail to follow:
(1) This movie lacks artistic realism: Look, audiences of Indy Jones have always suspended belief. I mean, in Raiders there are ghosts/spirits that fly around when the ark is opened. In Temple of Doom there is an inflatable boat that goes down a mountain and in Crusade you have Indy and dad shooting down Nazis in a bi-plane after leaving the blimp. However, in this film the critique I am levying deals more with the film's quality itself. For example, everything is out of place and makes no sense. In the other films the pieces fit together, here everything is disconnected. Why the references to Communism all throughout the movie and talk of being put on a list? I know history and I understand the "blacklist" and McCarthyism blah, blah, blah; but Is this a GW Bush attack? It is not needed, we get it people..it is 1950. Shia's character as youthful protagonist is ridiculous. He is like 16 and is flying across the world with Indy and is brining his motorcycle? This is completely out of place and has nothing to do with suspending belief. A 16-17 year old boy brings his motorcycle across the world...why? And why would anyone let him do that or pay for that? That is simply lack of artistic integrity and has nothing to do with completing an adventure that the characters are put into.
(2) Horrible Acting: The only saving grace here is that Indy Jones played by H. Ford still has the ability to show that same sarcastic anger that he always has, unfortunately he shows it during forgettable scenes with Marion what's her face and her annoying MTV movie star son "Shia". Why was she put in this horrid film? Her acting was horrible, she would get angry at things that no one would get angry at, she was calm during certain events where no one would be calm in. Shia's character, uh Mutt, (whatever dude) was over the top and retarded. The scene where he tries to fight "joe College" is retarded. We hear, "hey greasers, hey jocks". What is this? Spielberg and Lucas are bloated pompous multi-millionaire filmmakers whom I am sure were told this film is awful yet still forged this atrocious piece of money making garbage out of bad acting, bad plot and bad common sense. Finally, Cate Blanchett, the new darling of a pathetic Hollywood, is acting as eye candy. That's great she can speak with a Slavic accent but why is she the villain here? Would Stalin use a woman for anything that requires going to the US with Russian troops and killing US military personnel on a US Military top secret base during the 1950s? Are you serious? This choice of villain, again, has nothing to do with suspending belief for an event that must happen; this choice of villain is simply a bad choice on part of the filmmakers who have a liberal agenda and it reflects the poor overall quality of the film in general. Use a man-that would eliminated this unnecessary task of asking the audience to re-imagine and reinvent history.
(3)The "Feel": This critique is hard to describe. Indy Jones always seemed "down and dirty". His whip, his hat, his hard nosed intense approach to everything. Here we have a film that is way too glossy for Indy Jones. Remember the scene in the last crusade where Indy is hanging by a thread, literally, on a tank cannon and is rubbing on a cliff while debris falls down his jacket into his shirt and his eyes are wide? That "feel" of an Indy movie is COMPLETELY ABSENT here. Instead we have "Mutt" in a perfectly fine leather coat and perfect hair swinging from trees with monkeys onto a jeep. All the Indy Jones movies have a gritty realism to them, though certain events or plots may be far beyond belief. Not this one, not at all. Part of the prob is CGI, part of it is the taste and market for movies these days. Kids are seeing this movie mainly with their parents. And kids like stylized retarded stupid MTV gloss with no substance. Remember temple of doom and the bugs? Remember how real it was to see bugs crawling all over them and seeing Indy's hat being crushed by a descending cavern ceiling? None of that here. We have CGI ants. Let me pose a question to Hollywood and the money grubbers that run it: why is there still this erroneous belief that CGI can mimic realism? It cannot. Especially in cases where are senses would be heightened during certain events. Seeing bugs crawl on people in the Temple of Doom was MUCH realer than seeing retarded CGI ants get squashed between Ms. Blanchett's legs. We have aliens, much has been made about this in other posts and suffice to say that even if I would allow that Aliens are appropriate for a plot the way they are used here is beyond absurd. There is nothing else to say really about the aliens.
This movie is far worse then expected. It is truly a let down.
We Own the Night (2007)
Dull, boring and awful
Lately the movies have just been awful. We Own the Night is no exception. This movie has several fatal flaws to it. It's characters are terribly contrived, the acting is poor and the storyline is nonsensical and boring. First the characters in the movie do not feel real and are terribly out of place. Joaquin's character (Bob?) is a night club manager. His character goes from hard core partying night club manager to police officer. Wahlberg and Duvall are the brother and dad of Joaquin and they're cops. They share no chemistry as father/son; their relationship with Bob as their son doesn't stand out at all. The three have no chemistry on screen as a family. No attempt whatsoever is made to develop these characters. Wahlberg's and Mende's characters are absurd and bad to the point of being ridiculous. We have Wahlberg who is a narco cop yet becomes a silly pansy in the face of adversity. We have Mendes, a hottie actress intent on doing nothing but talking about her mom during the movie. The acting is poor all the way around. Joaquin's character (Bob) seems to mutter incomprehensible sentences during the entire movie and seems like a nervous schoolboy during the entire move. He is always walking around as if he has a back problem. Seriously notice how the guy appears hunched over whenever he does anything in this movie. The way Phoenix puts together sentences is simply atrocious. Duvall adds literally nothing to this lame drama, he is an old guy who, like anthony hopkins, attempts to portray roles that he could execute 20 years ago but not today. Also, he just lacks charisma, why the heck would a cop dad be so mad at his son for simply managing a night club? We are never given a reason why Duvall dislikes Bob managing the club-allegedly its because there are bad guys there? But bad guys are everywhere in life. It just doesn't make sense. Which leads me to my next point.
Which is that the storyline is awful and makes little sense. Even in 1988 or whenever this takes place if cops are being dropped like flies in big city one thing you can count on is absurd federal government involvement. We are led to believe that it's three cops versus an empire of Russian mafia. Please. During the chase scene we have a car disappear with no explanation. We have the chief of police getting axed by himself with no back up. There are no other cops. We have a runaway cop killer who escapes and then stays in the area to do a drug deal with his uncle who owns the club and knows his nephew is a wanted drug dealer. Would you as a major drug dealer let your runaway cop killing nephew join you in the city where he killed a cop in a major drug deal? No. Further, during the drug bust raid we have cops just sitting there in high grass calling out to major drug lords to stop thus encouraging said drug dealers to shoot them. Yea. Further, we have said cops in high grass yelling at drug lords with assault rifles whilst not wearing head protection. Yea. Then we have the Russian uncle who is partaking in major drug dealing with said runaway felon nephew. Further, you have duvall and wahlberg approaching Phoenix and getting mad at him for managing a club that appears pretty lucrative. Hmm. Then you have them mad at him for, uh, being around bad people I guess? Though we're never quite let on to why Phoenix is so hated by his cop family. The fact that a drug dealer attends a night club is hardly a reason to hate the person for managing the night club. Then we have a police force which consists apparently of like four cops versus the Russian mafia with no one else participating. The car chase is the only scene which I liked because it seemed real. No loud obnoxious music geared towards the MTV crowd, rather just an accurate description of cars chasing each other in rainy New York.
Overall this movie was incredibly bad and the acting and storyline were awful. The actors were not very good and I wish Hollywood could take the approach that great looks does supersede acting in the movie business. Do not feel obliged to cast hotties when they lack the ability to act.
Rome: Passover (2007)
Favorite show ever...
I love Rome-the richness of the characters, the layers of the scenery and the depth of emotion that these virtually unknown actors are able top pull off is brilliant. I am shocked that for years no one has made palatable shows about Rome--particularly during the Roman timespan that the HBO series captures. HBO is great b/c it reveals Rome to us in all its visceral feeling and truth--none of the camp and debased crap produced by American television companies which whinnies about terrorism all day w/ 70 year old actors who are devoid of any depth at all. All should watch Rome, it is by far, one of the best shows you will ever watch.
Casino Royale (2006)
The Way Bond is Supposed to be...
Finally, Bond gets back to basics; that is, he is finally masculine and cold-hearted while at the same time exuding charm and confidence. This formula has been missing from the Bond franchise for awhile now. I went and saw this movie with my mom and sister who usually don't care much for action movies, but they both liked this one due to the masculinity of Bond 's character coupled with his new Daniel Craig look. I really enjoyed seeing Bond as someone who turns it on/off, much like we all do between work and home. He admits to the conflict but like the rest of us who work, feels best when he is killing and doing his job. This movie reminds me of Chris Nolan's "batman Begins" because both show real men who are trying to overcome their own failings and weaknesses and in so doing show their resolve and determination to do what they are supposed to do. Batman Begins got Batman to where he is supposed to be, much like Bond returns to his rightful place as a man whom men admire and women adore. I liked it and really felt that Daniel Craig did an outstanding job as Bond. Yet, I must admit of two gripes I have with the movie: 1) too long as far as Bond's rehab and subsequent love w/ Vesper. 2) Not enough Bond dialogue. But overall, I was pleased and look forward to the next one. One last point, it is refreshing to see action movies and male stars acting masculine again. We have shifted so far to the left in all we do that past action movies w/ lead male roles tended to seem soft and feeling oriented. I see male emotion and political correct behavior everyday, I do not want to see that kind of nonsense in an action movie. Good to see some directors haven't turned completely soft coming out of film school.
Miami Vice (2006)
Truly Awful
All I can say is do not see this movie. This is the worst movie I have seen this summer. I take great latitude in appreciating movies. However, this movie does absolutely nothing the entire time it is on. This is the same type movie as collateral except far worse. We have Colin Farrel whose 6 or so pathetic lines in the movie make him sound like the fakest redneck I have ever heard, not to mention how his mullet looks awful. I know movies are bad when my friends and I start making fun of it 20 minutes into the film. The script here is absolutely horrendous, there are lines the characters say that lead nowhere and mean nothing. There are scenes that just seem to continue into forever while characters look aimlessly in the sky or in the distance. I mean we were making snoring sounds to express our distaste for how long and drawn out some of the scenes were. Why do women like Colin Farrel? In this movie he looks like a redneck speed freak with a mullet, and has the build of a 12 year old soccer player. The plot, oh my, is so terrible. I still am not sure what the horrid plot was. Suffice to say that we have "major" drug lords who don't look imposing at all, have no presence, and make no sense. Then we have this "professional drug business woman" who is with the top drug dealer in south America or something, and falls for some hillbilly from nowhere in one day in Cuba. This made no sense. Further, the other drug dealer guy was lameo. He looked as scary as my goldfish, and his presence wasn't ominous or anything of the like. Look, I like most action movies when they are fun, exciting, OK plot, whatever, but this movie is terrible folks. It makes no sense, there is no plot, the acting sucks, there are long drawn out scenes that lead nowhere and you the action isn't that great. There are a couple of OK scenes where there is heavyweight gunplay, however, these scenes comprise about .5% of the movie. The other 99.95% of the movie are stills of Colin Farrel looking into the distance at nothing while a camera shakes like your watching your teenage son direct his friend's band at the local bar. Lastly, a word on political correctness in movies: why the flip are the other drug dealers in Miama Florida white aryan nation guys? Is Hollywood so held hostage by blacks that they can't portray them honestly? I mean, the gangs in Miami are hispanic (latin American) or black, not white. Its almost like in film anymore we can't portray any truth, no movies about terrorists arabs, we still have the same Russian white guys, and here whites. Why? Because whites require no political protection from any attack. So directors play it safe so they aren't accused of anything, but it makes the whole movie unrealistic and boring.
A River Runs Through It (1992)
Story of Truth, America, Love, and Fish
There are 3 movies that I could watch over and over and over again. Very, very few movies move my heart and soul. Those 3 movies are: Braveheart, Last of the Mohicans, and A River Runs Through It. Masculine movies to be sure, but beautiful as well.
This movie is beautiful. The plot is not Hollywood type stuff, but rather it is more of a story. The river is the divide, the bridge, the time that cuts across one family's journey in and out of life. It is almost mystical how the story is told. I read the book after I saw the movie, and it was one of the most moving pieces of literature I have ever read, and the funny part is that it is fairly short-a short story to be exact.
The plot of this movie is about life, and how the river, always constant provides the benchmark by which that life is measured. To be honest, I am surprised that Redford did such Americana-God type stuff as this, but he did. The brothers feelings in the movie are very heartfelt and wonderfully acted. The fight scene in which the brothers fight and Norman has tears in his eyes out of fear, rage, and sadness, reminded me of my fights during my youth. The lessons learned from that were transfixed onto the screen in a flash. That is brilliant film-making folks, to capture true human emotions and thoughts and impose them on believable real people. I loved how the fishing and the river keeps all things equal and true.
This is a movie about life, and the sadness, hurt, regret, joy that is captured by one powerful river in Montana. The son Paul, played by Brad Pitt, goes his own way, and as a result becomes a master fly fisherman, and a gambler and a drunk. This movie (and book) shows that nothing is ever what it seems, and every person has gifts and liabilities that they must choose to deal with in their own way. Its also a movie that shows us that we can't save everyone, each person is endowed with gifts. But those gifts may also contain the seeds of our undoing. No more waxing poetic. This movie will fill your heart with ache and longing. But it will also make you feel something stirring deep within you at the most basic, fundamental level. "All things merge into one, and A river runs through it".
The Break-Up (2006)
Horrid Garbage
To be quite honest, I expected a lot more from this movie than what I received. Perhaps it was my high expectations that lead to the dramatic letdown I experienced. First, the plot was as force-fed as it gets. We have a couple whom are breaking-up, yet continue to live together whilst Jennifer Anniston has her uh, private parts shaved and then walks around naked for vaughn to see?!? I mean, that made no sense. Then, the reason they supposedly "break-up" is so ridiculous. Vaughn comes into the house and loves on anniston then they fight b/c he doesn't like how she wants 12 lemons? To understand what I am saying here, you must see this movie, it really makes no sense. Further, Vaughn treats her like complete garbage (and I'm a guy who fights w/ his fiancé' all the time here folks) for really, as far as I could see, no reason whatsoever. The plot was just completely convoluted and all the effects in the movie had no causes. I'd also like to say that after the movie I really felt bad for Anniston (not too bad, considering the fact that she makes millions just to say a few lines and look pretty on a screen) b/c she was just completely over-taken by Vaughn, and Vaughn who I normally find funny, was so completely over-the-top ridiculous and really just exaggerated even for himself that I couldn't find any credibility with his character at all. He was constantly yelling @ Anniston for really trivial things. I mean, this is why the movie made no sense, Anniston plays a likable cute, sweetheart, yet Vaughn is screaming @ her the whole movie about everything. So, the laughs were contrived. I found the audience where I was at (which was packed) only laughed at the scenes which were in the ads on TV. So, the audience felt compelled to laugh, other than that: no laughs at all, b/c it wasn't funny. Really, this movie next week will probably have the most dramatic drop in sales amongst all movies. This movie was a HUGE LETDOWN.
Silent Hill (2006)
I liked the whole movie except for the end...
I'll admit, I am 25 years old, and the I only played Silent Hill years ago on playstation. The game was really cool, though I would get frustrated trying to figure out puzzles. (just like resident evil). With that being said, I must say that the movie plot was vaguely familiar, and I knew it would be a creepy, cool, wicked sort of movie. I will now list my pros and cons of the movie: PROS: 1) Gore that is cool: First, I didn't think there was that much gore in this movie. Really, there isn't a lot except for a pyramid head skin ripping scene and the climax. But, the way the gore was done was very classy. I absolutely though the part where pyramid head rips the clothes and then the skin off a woman and throws it at the door was superb. That was pure evil and rage.Well Done. too often horror movies "gore" is over the top, but it doesn't quite wrench you, w/ some scenes in "Hill" it certainly does wrench at you 2) Beginning Story Line: I love movies that are creepy and dark, Silen Hill was a perfect video game to go movie b/c of the fact that the world changes into a sort of hell at certain points. The loud tornado sirens that warn of the darkness is very cool 3) Characters: Someone said here on IMDb that they don't like Sean bean, I think he's great, and Rahda Mitchell was good, though a bit over-the-top at the end.
CONS: 1) Be different. The movie could have ended superbly, but it didn't. Video games have the luxury of being far stretched because the real point of video games, is to play them. Some loyalists may hate me for this, but who says its wrong to take a video game plot and change some parts to suit the big screen? My point: The ending which involved a girl, and another demon girl, and the Sharron girl, didn't really make sense. The movie could have drawn up an ending without explaining it all away. For example, at the end we get the whole truth of whats going on, but it is lackluster, it concerns the stereotypical backwoods Christians that are so Christian they become evil, or something like that. B/C they burn people who don't follow the commandments. But, this could have been done better. I mean, don't try to explain the evil as coming from a girls imagination, make it an evil that is all-encompassing, and is part of a larger picture about the world, make the girl some sort of catalyst for hell. I got the sense that the evil church woman was really the cause of all of this, and once shes gone, the evil is gone. I like movies that make their plots something bigger.
2) The Ending #2 complaint: Why is main character sitting in her house in a fog? Is she still in the "darkness"? I know this probably follows the game, but seeing in how much of the audience doesn't have the luxury of playing video games all day, how are we to know what the heck is going on? Explain please.
3) Pyramid Head: I loved this character, the movie should've have spent more time doing some action sequences where pyramid head and other creatures kill some folks. But i understand that this movie is "tension" based. But, it still would have been cool.
Thx!
V for Vendetta (2005)
What political garbage
This movie is absolutely ridiculous. If one wants to make a "revolutionary" political thriller, then at least be honest. I mean, the right-wing Christian is bad message is really pathetic. We are supposed to believe that "christians" have demonized Muslims and gays?!!? I mean, has anyone looked at reality lately? A Christian man is being condemned to death in Afghanistan for converting for Christianity, Chrstiantity is not the problem. This movie could have been done a lot better if its "Anti-Bush" message was a little more even keeled. I mean to me the left wing is the threat in this country, not the right. Further, the main message of the movie was that we should watch out for "christian anti-gay and anti-Muslim governments" pleeeaaassseee. The main threats to peace in this world are indeed islam, china, Russia, Iran, north Korea, and the middle east. Not a guy who loves Jesus. This ultra-political movie was junk. It seems that the right wing is an easy target which makes me realize that thats why its bullcrap when we see them as the political threat. This movie takes the easy route, for budgetary reasons. The fact that movies aren't made that are critical of islam or china or the left tells me that those things are the threats. Hollywood is afraid of Muslims as are most Americans, so we attack easy targets and turn the truth into lies. This movie is garbage.
Running Scared (2006)
This movie sucks
This movie contains too much cursing that doesn't add to anything. I am not against cursing if used productively and it fits. It simply doesn't it in this movie. Second, the characters are absolutely ridiculous. So, we have an undercover cop who is trying to expose the mafia. He has been doing this for 12 years. Yet, he is out of his mind trying to recover a gun. Hmmm, an undercover cop on the verge of loosing his mind, and as an undercover cop he is privy to several grisly murders, yet still takes no action? WTF? This makes no sense. Third, if you are an undercover cop, why the flip would you act like a complete idiot at home??!? Joey acts like a complete moron while he is at home! We are supposed to believe that this 1o year old boy is joey's son, yet the two have the bond of oil and water. If anything Walker may have pulled off acting as his older brother, not father. In fact, Walker was so unfather like in this film, that I started to get irritated at the director fro forcing this upon us. Fourth, the pedophile thing in the movie was indeed disturbing, while this sort of stuff is intriguing because its so twisted, it bothers me that subject is beginning to not be taboo. It should remain so, its sick, there is no need for that on film. However, that being said, it was a twisted element that does hold your attention, b/c your thinking WTF? And that is the one facet of this movie that works well, the pedophiles come across as demons from hell, and it scared me more than anything I've seen in a long time. I still think about that part, what makes that part so engrossing is the thought that there may be people like this in reality. But as I said, I would just prefer that kind of stuff to not be shown. fifth, the plot doesn't add up. Joey has been undercover for 12 years, and has been privy to murders, he disposes guns, yet his mob crew thinks he may have been negligent in failing to dispose of the gun. Thats fine, but why would they want to kill him? I mean, beat him down, but killing a man who has been w/ you for 12 years just b/c he was lazy hardly makes sense. sixth, joey plays undercover, but why does he bring the undercover stuff to his house? No undercover would do that. Even after 12 years. And he especially wouldn't go get his son in the mix with criminals. Now, the nay sayers tell me that he was "deep undercover" well, you can be deep undercover, but not in this fashion. What person who is "good" would curse like that in front of his son? The characters were all ridiculous, and you have a cop going around beating people, threatening them, taking his son to crack houses, introducing him to mob bosses, you have a corrupt cop who doesn't seem to have any leverage at all for his demands to the mob. I mean, the dialog was so contrived I thought a junior college basketball player wrote it. Chazz Palmieri says, "do what I want, or I'll take you all down" well, if he takes "them down" then they all testify against him with pretty serious testimony. Also, they had the cop's badges from when the drug deal went bad. It just made no sense, I mean have corrupt cops, but show me where the leverage is! Overall this movie is just plain bad.
Madea's Family Reunion (2006)
Afro-Trash
When will the African-American Hollywood Association make some type of movie other than the stereotypical chitlins, and collar greans family movie with the thug nephew and dirty old grandpa. These movies are so played out. It is shameful that this movie was even considered for production by a drunk monkey. Yet, it has the highest weekend gross. How can this be? It is pure trash and stereotypes. I'll let you ponder how this is so. I really do not understand how this movie was produced. There was no plot, the characters were contrived and stereotypical. These kinds of movies are not representatitive of the black community. The mind behind these movies is a wash out comedian who never made a dime with this garbage, until one night when a drunken church group came and saw his skit. Now, unfortunately he believes that God has placed him on this path. This movie is terrible, it is really quite that simple.
Braveheart (1995)
Brilliant Film-making
Quite honestly this movie is just absolutely brilliant. I have never, ever seen a movie that inspiring in my life. Any time I would hear a person talk about how a movie inspired them I would laugh. I mean we've all seen great movies, but I have never thought longer then 2 seconds about a movie after I saw it.
Braveheart is the only movie that i have seen more than 5 times. It is simply an amazing piece of film. The first time I saw this movie, I couldn't even move. It was that brilliant. I am not someone who cares for 99% of movies. And ones like the Godfather, Shawshank, North by Northwest, are all very good, but none, and I mean none even approach the level of filmamking that Braveheart attained.
As far as the movie itself goes, there are much better writers then I here on IMDb who can artfully tell you the brilliance of this film. I don't know too much about all that. But I do know that after watching this film, I felt truly inspired, and I mean I really did. The scenery of this film along with the music truly elevates this movie to a level most films would die to get to. But it is the content of this film that resonates so deeply in me.
This film is crafted to near perfection to touch on the rawest of human emotions, freedom and pain. The freedom isn't some corny word that most lame ass liberal Americans throw around these days, it was a visceral word. A word that was real. A word that stood for more than some college professors rant on Bush. Braveheart elevates the theme of freedom to something to die for. Not only does the film do that, but it introduces love as freedoms only companion. Wallace played by Gibson, rises to the occasion of playing a passionate Scot who wants to free his homeland. That plot alone sounds basic, right? But somehow, it rises to what it is suppose to rise to..brilliance.
I know people have challenged this movies historical portrayals, but that is really not relevant. This film isn't played in schools in Scotland, or anywhere for that matter, to teach them some Scottish history. Please people, this movie is theme based.
Watch this movie A.S.A.P. if you haven't already, and if you have, watch it again. It is truly inspiring.
The Patriot (2000)
Its good if it angers liberals
I read some comments here that are a lot of hot air. Its funny how liberal writers when writing about movies like 'the patriot' spend 22 pages picking out historical inaccuracies about it. If its pro-American, and it shows Americans fighting our enemies, then the libs cry foul. Their favorite battle cry always revolves around that common destroyer of speech...racism. Many people writing comments about this movie apparently have a 'problem' with how the blacks were treated in this film. Hmmm, one guy spent 5 pages in IMDb commenting on the so-so historical truths about slaves and the American Revolution. The facts remain the facts here folks, we Americans got rid of the redcoats. Thats the bottom line here. History has been written much about that war. This is a movie and attempts to entertain people. Thats it. Not every movie has to have a "bad white men" "good blacks" "good indians" message. This movie was very entertaining, good scenery, good costumes, and a good storyline. Sorry Brits and Libs it didn't please you b/c it wasn't left enough for ya.
Flightplan (2005)
Please explain your premises...
OK, flightplan is a movie that is tailored to take advantage of post 9-11 intensity and fear. Throw in the mix Jodie Foster, and you have intense emotion that is unleashed in a frantic and scary scenario. Jodie does good here as "kyle". I have no complaints with her acting, it is very good, very sincere and truthful. I have 3 HUGE problems with this movie. (1) Please explain your major premise of the movie-I for one, am able to take huge leaps in connecting the dots when it comes to a movies plot, however, the filmmakers must at least try to explain how a major premise of the movie occurs. So, the girl disappears, and no one sees her, thats fine, thats the springboard for the movie's theme, however, it is never explained in any way how the bad guy abducted the girl from her seat with no one seeing her. I mean, at least give a blip that they were all drugged, or poisoned, or the bad guy has an invisible cloak, but at least give the audience something to make sense out of the premise. Your telling me, not one person on this plane saw the bad guy grab the girl from her seat and carry her down to the nose of the airplane, and apparently there are only 2 bad guys in this movie. Unless everybody on the plane is a terrorist, which we find out there not, how is it no one sees her? Never explained, or grounded in any way. This director should take lessons in syllogisms.I mean at the end of the movie the 2 kids who previously on screen told jodie they never saw her daughter, make a point of saying after the girl is found, "see i told you there was a girl" this is in direct contrast to what was said earlier by these 2 kids. Again, nothing is offered for an explanation on how NO ONE SEES THE GIRL! A MAJOR PREMISE OF THE MOVIE! (2) The arab guys are seen by jodie at the beginning of the film staring at her, but then they say they are at a hotel, and we find out they are not the bad guys, hmmm, then why does the director show them to us at the beginning of the film staring at jodie? No sense, unless I'm missing something. (3) The air Marshall, that actor playing an air Marshall is like Denzel Washington playing a Klan member, the guy was as believable as an air Marshall as well, see above. I mean, the air Marshall struck me as a pornographer, not a law enforcement guy, no way. I mean, he was supposed to convey a sense of authority looking like a rag-tag sleezeball? I don't think so, reserve those parts to vin diesels and guy pierces and the dude from punisher, not pizza face actor, I mean the guy had more craters in his face then the moon! Anyway, the movie, was still enjoyable despite these MAJOR FLAWS. But if your like me, and you at least like some form of an explanation for a major premise of a movie, flightplan will irritate you tremendously.
A History of Violence (2005)
Over-the-top trash
I saw this movie with high hopes. I thought Vigo would display his dramatic, violent, masculine side. Instead he comes out in this movie like a little kid in his elementary school play. This movie has a decent premise, guy changes life to fit into smalltown USA and raises family. Bad guys come looking for him years later, all hell breaks loose. Sounds good, right? Wrong.
This movie tried to become something its not, first, everyone was miscast. Viggo's acting was, quite honestly, horrendous. I'm no New York Drama teacher, but watching this you see over-the-top detached emotion. Maria bello is supposed to be a "small town girl"? I don't think so. The gratuitous sex scenes just were not needed. I know that this Cronenberg has a reputation. But please, I don't see how, in any way, the sex scenes did anything for the film, if anything, they took away from the film. If I were the director of this film, I would have dived into the personality struggle that "Joey" was possibly under. I know thats the big surprise. "wow hes really joey!" but when that realization came I was sort of angry, I mean, tell us earlier then have some more detail built into his character. Also, the movie is a history of violence, but really, there is not much violence in this movie, what it is, is that the violence that does occur is in your face violence which really wasn't that bad. But I wanted more of viggo whooping up.And instead of turning him into a Martial arts, navy seal commando as cronenberg tried to do, just keep it simple, make him lethal b/c he has a meanness in him. That bothered me, was the director suppose to convince us that viggo was Jet Li? Lastly, Ed Harris should have had a larger part, and a better part. This movie had vast potential, but the potential was cut off due to an extremism that failed. This movie is barely worth the cost of renting a DVD.
Glory Road (2006)
Unfair to whites...
I think most reasonable Americans will say that they are not racist and deplore it. This is different then saying you agree with cultural values that certain races have proposed to adopt for themselves. Glory Road is a fine story, no disagreement, but like all racial movies, it lacks honesty, and fair dealing.
Truth be told, racism is not an issue today for blacks, period. It was then. This story does a fine job of telling it, and making it halfway interesting. But, there is always more to a story than the pro-liberal anti-racist message. It is truly unfortunate, that we can never address the issues of race honestly. How about a movie about Tookie Williams, the evil black man who killed 4 people in cold blood b/c he was a "street survivor". Or we need a movie about how oppressed Whitney Houston is during her last 20 years as a coked up millionaire who is constantly getting arrested. Or maybe a movie about 50 cent, a true story about how he murdered people and sold crack to people while ruining their lives. Or how about a movie that questions black culture, instead of a movie that constantly demonizes white culture as racist, from a time most Americans don't remember. I am unclear as to how these reverse racist movies are always getting made. The VAST majority of white people today bend over backwards and sideways to accommodate black people to insure their every unnecessary demand is met, and that every possible advantage is given them at every challenge. Every college provides unheard of scholarships for black kids based on their color, whilst charging white students exuberant amounts. These are stories that need to be made into movies. But that will not happen. We live in a strange era, where honest talk and forthright communication that asks real questions is severely oppressed by the Government and law. The new McCartyism is, without any shadow of doubt, Racism. This movie promotes the big lie, that whites are racist. People actually still believe this when every shred of evidence points to the contrary. Special privileges are conferred upon blacks at every corner, every excuse given for their behavior, while no accountability is administered. Unfortuanate. And movies like this continue to feed that big race lie. Many people after reading this will be angry. My answer is why? I am not racist. I do not hate the black skin color. No, I think very critically about movies and the issues they pose. I have a Dr. who is black, a female law professor who is black (and very, very intelligent)and several black friends, (unfortuantely too, in this day and age you must always qualify yourself, when thinking critically, as a "non-racist") I engage in real conversation w/ blacks quite a bit about the problems I see with their assertions. I can tell you, most at first get mad at me, then listen intently, they realize I do not hate. People who call people racist cop out, and are more full of hate and spite then those they chide. No, people respect me b/c I respect them, but I do not sign off on socially acceptable messages, when under the surface they are very hurtful. As is the case w/ Glory Road, a seemingly truthful movie that shows how blacks are human and special. Thats fine, but it falls on its face in sincerity, and the movie itself charges racism a/g whites. Please, if you see this, remember that it is a clear message that should be taken with a grain of salt.
Four Brothers (2005)
This movie lacks depth and weight...
I saw this movie last night, and let me say, it was bad. The villain "victor sweet" has moments in the film that do not even seem to make sense in any way, one second he is making people eat off the floor, and then he has kids eating ice cream in his house, and then all his "peeps" turn on him. This makes no sense. The bad guy in this was laughable at best, and the effort by singleton to make his appear "bad" are horrid efforts in film-making. The brothers themselves are as believable as unicorns. We have Wahlberg, who may be able to pass off as a black guy, he really tries, but then we have the white punk rocker who grew up in Detroit and acts more like a woman in the movie than a bad ass. I was happy when he got killed because he was like a square peg in a round hole. Outcast guy was decent as an actor, making him a bad ass in the film however, was laughable. In one scene he hits Tyrese w/ the force of a 4 yr old girl and tyrese stumbles back like 10 feet. I laughed at that, in real life tyrese would have stood there and then punched outcast dude's face in. The plot of this movie is laughable as well. I mean, your left wondering, what is the point of this? The scenes with the mom in ghost form connecting w/ each boy was also laughable. It was like singleton just threw in a bunch of people and said, act like a family, but at the same time share not one trait in common. I mean, it was bad. Tyrese Gibson is not very convincing as a tough guy. In fact, only Wahlberg is. Wahlberg is the only guy in this film that exudes even a small hint of masculinity. This movie is more about racial mixing then anything else. In fact, I didn't even like the mom in the movie, she struck me as fake and culpable. She looked more like a crazy hag who eats children at the thanksgiving dinner scene then the caring mom. And for 4 uh, "brothers" to seem to share not one thing in common is a mistake on singleton's part. The fact is, 4 brothers fails in its attempt to convey a sense of togetherness amongst blacks and whites. That was the main point, and it failed miserably in my estimation. Further, Hollywood really needs to develop black actors more. They are typecast all the time as "caring gangsters". I mean the cop in this film, the dude from "hustle and flow", he is a superb actor, yet every film he is in has to do w/ race. Let blacks do some films that aren't about race for crying out loud. The race factor has been beat into the face of every American for the last 30 years of black acting. OK, we get it, you suffer from racism, but expand your horizons! Let the Denzel in you come out! The guy who plays victor sweet was horrible, he was OK in "serenity" but again, typecast as a black gangster, his character was poor, he didn't look like "killer dog" he looked like a pesty child who needed to just be spanked. Annoying character development. I mean one more race thing here, singleton even allowed Wahlberg to call a sort of bad back guy a "house ni$%er" this is from the movie folks! Not me! I mean, that is a lame attempt to make Wahlberg look like he "fits in w/ the black crowd" please. That wasn't needed, and it offended me because it was contrived.
Annapolis (2006)
I mean, this really is lame
Can we please have a movie that is palpable? I mean, you take a movie about officer training and turn it into a politically correct piece of boxing garbage? What the flip is going on in this movie? I mean after seeing this you have to ask yourself..just what was the point of this film? I love how this horrid director threw in the mighty black actor, and the strong willed Sergeant woman, and then the idiot white boy franco, a new typical Hollywood formula. I mean people can't find work in this country and these actors and directors are getting huge sums of money to do this garbage? Unbelievable. There is no story here, no point, no value. The plot is lame, the actors are stereotypical for the new 21st century (as i said you have, the mighty strong black guy, the strong, daring, and at the same time beautiful hot chick, and then the lame ass white boy) this is pathetic, the military wonders why it gets no recruits, its because trash like this is made. Who the hell wants a woman yelling at them all day! Forget that, this movie sucks, no better way to say it. I think "sucks" conveys the point quite nicely.
Why We Fight (2005)
Euro-trash propaganda
It seems, that the world needs a history lesson. This film is ridiculous. Documentaries made by Europeans supposing to explain the American Military really fall flat on their faces. The American Military is a popular target. --This movie, like all 21st century anti-military propaganda is really void of history and/or truth. --First, this movie gives a clearly misguided, and untruthful portrayal of the American Military. History 101-America has always been Leary of a big military. This has been the case since our inception as a nation. We were founded on the citizen-soldier, and most of the Governmnet up until the civil war, opposed a standing army. Why? Because Britian had a standing army that was imperialistic and oppressive. And American wanted to avoid that. Now, even during the civil war the North avoided conscription, though they threatened it, the South used it at the very end of the war. Why? because we, as Americans, prefer a small, professional military. Unlike rag-tag oppressive, marauders who rape and pillage. The Fed Govt. as a whole, kept the military small b/c again, the people don't like big military. In WW2 however, the Germans and Japanese were raping, killing, murdering, plundering, and destroying property at will. America was needed and answered the call. Again though, the VAST majority of Americans VOLUNTEERED for duty to save the Europeans. After this war the military got small again.
Now, why is it that people believe the American Military is so huge and oppressive. First, our military is small for our population size, and second, if you really think the American military is oppressive you haven't seen oppressive. Our military is small, not imperialistic, and acts more like a father to our enemies then as an enemy ought to. If you think the Iraq war is "horrible" then you clearly don;t know history. During the civil war over 1 million people were casualties. In Iraq a whopping 500 have been actual enemy combat kills. The Iraq war is like little children fighting. Real war has yet to be realized by todays world. Wait until China and the Middle East collude a/g Europe. Then you will see war. The American military is in Iraq trying to basically bend over backwards to give the Iraqis whatever they want. That is not the job of the military. --This film is ridiculous, not truthful. The American military is small, not imperialistic, volunteer, not oppressive, is ran by a politically liberal agenda aimed at helping people, and is not this Attila the Hun army, ravaging the countryside determined to rape, maim, and kill. Our government sends its own soldiers to jail just for being culturally insensitive.
One more point to the European elitists. The fact that Europeans believe that America is the "biggest threat" to peace in the world is a thought that is very chilling. Why? Because it demonstrates how completely out of touch with truth, reality, and history people are. How is it possible to believe the U.S. is a threat to world peace? How is that possible? It is not, and furthermore, it makes utterly no sense. You see Europe, we here in America CHOOSE to join our military. We are volunteers, so there is a key piece of information that Europeans don't quite understand. Second, why do people flock to the U.S. in droves, if we are this horrible, military state? They don't. In fact, people all over the wold love our courts, our employment opportunities, and all sorts of social benefits from being American. The simple truth here is that the ideology that this movie portrays is false. Period. America has always been expected to fight to save others, how many times do you hear that "America" should intervene? Especially with Africa, we are expected to intervene all the time b/c the Europeans and the wonderful middle east and china don't. It is incredible that this trash is digested by people. Look, any documentary can present things in a way that cast negativity on a race, a culture, a restaurant, a country, but the issue is, taken as a whole is it evidence of anything? Answer here is no. I love how people talk in generalities about how the U.S. is this big threat to peace, and then people compare us to the soviet union and Rome, and Britain's old war time status. How incredibly ridiculous and untrue. We are not like Rome or China, or the Soviet Union, or France. You see, we actually have a thing called civil rights, we have a court system of justice that for your information is the best in the world. But the Europeans go after soft targets, that is their style. Hey Europe, look over your shoulder, Iran is going to wipe the floor with you right in the middle of your "I hate Bush speech". Have you considered the hospitable China in your critique of militarism? Probably not I would suppose. Oh, and uh, do you even know history at all? The footage of Eisenhower is supposed to convey to the audience a sense of fright for the future. Please, what trash. All it is, is another Prez making a speech. How many speeches have been given in Britian by leaders that criticize their country? I'm sure a few. My feeling is, why do people keep coming here? The truth is that, America is wonderful country, and a country which respects life and personal dignity. Every person I know respects life and most are willing to fight to preserve a person's dignity, unlike Europeans. Get over yourself. I expect in a few years, after the Europeans have bent at knee to Iran, that the U.S. will be asked for assistance. We will leave the babies to fend for themselves, good luck!