Movie review rant 2015

Status
Not open for further replies.
Really? I was soooo disappointed by this movie. Given all that had come before (i.e. the Madagascar trilogy), I was expecting it to be pretty impressive. But it was boring and close to unwatchable. Admittedly those celebrity name drops were very clever, and there were a couple of other clever lines, but overall it was surprisingly dull.
Rating: 2/10

Bit late to the party but I agree with zooboy28, the film failed on so many levels despite an impressive cast and a few sharp one-liners. The plot was lousy and failed to even keep the kids interested!

Even John Malkovic couldn't save this turkey...


Unrelated note; anyone reviewed Kingsman yet?
 
Piranha 3D and Piranha 3DD

The third and fourth Piranha sequels sure were a long time coming. Probably because nobody asked for them or wanted them. The original Piranha was filmed in 1978 and the first sequel, Piranha 2: The Spawning or Piranha 2: Flying Killers (depending on where it was released), in 1981. Both of them were.... how shall I put this... complete rubbish. Interesting sideline: Piranha 2 was directed by a complete unknown named James Cameron, and Lance Henrikson was one of the main characters.

Piranha 3D was released in 2010 - yes, three whole decades after the originals, just to show that Hollywood has run out of ideas altogether. The title is really clever: it is the third movie, and it is in 3D! Geddit? The writers put a lot of effort into that title. They thought even harder, if that can be imagined, to come up with the title for the fourth movie (in 2012). Instead of just calling it Piranha 4 they sat looking at the stills from what had already been shot, realised that 90% of it was naked boobs, and said "3DD!!" all at the same time. True story! Maybe.

Piranha 3D tries to play as a pretty "serious" horror movie, albeit one with Christopher Lloyd and full-frontal nudity (er, those two things are not connected in the movie though!). It is still pretty funny, but it sticks with cheap horror thrills for the humour.

Piranha 3DD, on the other hand, goes full steam ahead towards the ridiculous comedy side of things. There is still full-frontal nudity and Christopher Lloyd (still not connected!) but it also has tridents through the face, a piranha somehow living inside a girl's body (?), and David Hasselhoff playing himself. Man, I really want to watch this movie again! And I'm so sure that the afro-headed guy is the same one as in that music video where he is walking along the beach dancing and at the end flies up into the sky.

Ratings: 2 out of 10
 
Last edited:
Redemption

Also known as Hummingbird. This is a Jason Statham movie from 2013, where he plays a homeless man who can't find time to wash or cut his hair, have a shower, or change his stinking clothes, but still apparently shaves every few days. Oh, also he's an ex-special forces because he's Jason Statham. It is a pretty slow movie, fairly uneventful and kind of boring, which thinks it is being very deep. The first several hours are just Statham bumming around and getting drunk, then falling through a skylight into some random guy's apartment and stealing all his stuff along with his identity. Upon realising that the wardrobe has suits, Statham knows the only thing to do is quit drinking, shave his head again, start working out, and then ... go work for some Asian triad as a thug? In the end he goes back to being a drunken bum.

The Redemption title is a double-up referring to the Sisters of Redemption (a local church with a nun Statham wants to bang) and because Statham's character gets redemption by, um, I guess throwing a guy off a building and then crawling back into the gutter? I dunno, it doesn't make sense. Hummingbird is a bizarre reference to Statham's hallucinations of hummingbirds, which relate to the drones in Afghanistan which they called hummingbirds.

Yeah, it's a weird sort of movie.

I'll rate it, say, 5 out of 10. Middle of the road.
 
Last edited:
Safe

Another Jason Statham movie, this one from 2012. In this one Statham's character is a homeless man who.... wait, is this the same movie? Um, hang on, no in this one he is an ex-some-sort-of-black-ops-specialist. There's all sorts of threads going everywhere in the plot, involving the Russian mafia, Chinese triads, crooked American cops, mechanics, transporters, I'm getting confused again. What matters is that Jason Statham kills pretty much everybody, hooray. Good movie.

Rating: 7 out of 10 (relative to similar action movies of course, not to actual good movies).
 
Unrelated note; anyone reviewed Kingsman yet?

Not here by the looks. ;)

I saw Kingsman: The Secret Service in theatre earlier in the year, and thought it was basically the best movie ever. Its a British spy action comedy, starring Colin Firth, Samuel L. Jackson, Mark Strong and Michael Caine, with new guy Taron Egerton as the main character. The story is James Bond-esque, but the comedic elements and graphic violence aren't at all. Apparently its based on a comic book series, and does have quite a stylised look to it, which is rather interesting and unusual.

It comes out on Blu-Ray here next week, and I'm certainly planning on buying it so I can watch it again.

Rating: 9/10.
 
Not here by the looks. ;)

I saw Kingsman: The Secret Service in theatre earlier in the year, and thought it was basically the best movie ever. Its a British spy action comedy, starring Colin Firth, Samuel L. Jackson, Mark Strong and Michael Caine, with new guy Taron Egerton as the main character. The story is James Bond-esque, but the comedic elements and graphic violence aren't at all. Apparently its based on a comic book series, and does have quite a stylised look to it, which is rather interesting and unusual.

It comes out on Blu-Ray here next week, and I'm certainly planning on buying it so I can watch it again.

Rating: 9/10.

I like your reviews zooboy, it saves me typing my own out! :p I agree with your whole assessment but you missed out Sammy J's lisp which I found highly amusing for some reason!?
You can tell it was made by the team that did Kick Ass but that isn't a bad thing at all! A solid 9 indeed! :)
 
I like your reviews zooboy, it saves me typing my own out! :p I agree with your whole assessment but you missed out Sammy J's lisp which I found highly amusing for some reason!?
You can tell it was made by the team that did Kick Ass but that isn't a bad thing at all! A solid 9 indeed! :)

Thanks :cool:
That lisp was hysterical, very amusing indeed! :D
 
Bit late to the party but I agree with zooboy28, the film failed on so many levels despite an impressive cast and a few sharp one-liners. The plot was lousy and failed to even keep the kids interested!

Even John Malkovic couldn't save this turkey...


Unrelated note; anyone reviewed Kingsman yet?

I think I'll buy the Penguins of Madagascar movie BluRay - such a funny, timeless flick!! :D
 
There are a few Jason Statham movies that are available for free on Netflix. I avoid them like the plague. :D I'll only watch movies like Fast and Furious 7 and Expendable that he appears in because he is not the lead actor. Oh, I do quite like Snatch, but mostly because of Brad Pitt.
 
There are a few Jason Statham movies that are available for free on Netflix. I avoid them like the plague. :D I'll only watch movies like Fast and Furious 7 and Expendable that he appears in because he is not the lead actor. Oh, I do quite like Snatch, but mostly because of Brad Pitt.

And what about Lock, Stock And Two Smoking Barrels? :p
 
Terminator Genisys came out the other day, and I am planning on going to see it on Monday. However it looks like Judgement Day is already beginning: https://nz.finance.yahoo.com/news/robot-kills-man-volkswagen-plant-234224279.html

Edit: the title didn't come out: it says "Robot kills man at Volkswagen plant".

You only gave half the story. The even more interesting twist was that the news was tweeted by a reporter named Sarah O'Connor. Poor woman never even saw the Terminator movies, and so didn't foresee the online meltdown. Sarah O’Connor tweets about VW’s killer robot, Twitter goes crazy
 
I'm waiting for the new Mission Impossible movie - the promos look really promising.

:p

Hix
 
What do Michelle Rodriguez, Lady Gaga, Jessica Alba, Vanessa Hudgens, Sofia Vergara, Mel Gibson, Cuba Gooding Jr, Emilio Estevez (i.e. Charlie Sheen) and Antonio Banderas have in common? They all starred in Machete Kills. With a cast like that, you know you are in for a fun ride with unbelievable plots and low budget special effects that are supposed to look like a cheap 70s flick. I mean, would a hottie really be attracted to Machete? And can Mexico really build a missile to hit Washington?

Look, if you want to be entertained by a star-studded cast in a silly action movie, and you want to see Sofia Vergara shooting guns from some surprising parts of her body, then this movie is for you. Lovers of the first Machete movie will love this second in the franchise, and will no doubt enjoy the third. 6/10
so that review was from November 2013. I just watched Machete Kills last night.

I loved the first Machete, completely over-the-top but awesome. The sequel is deliberately-insanely over-the-top but not quite as awesome. There are some really cool parts scattered through it, but often it just played out as being too self-conscious about being kooky.

It is set in an even-more-alternate-reality than the first one, a place where Machete literally cannot die, where cloned super-soldiers exist, and where an assassin named El Camaleón simply peels his own face off to reveal a different one underneath (starting with Walton Goggins [that's right, the Walton Goggins!], then Cuba Gooding Jr., then Lady Gaga, then Antonio Banderas).

Alternately fun and drowsy, everyone nevertheless seemed to have had good fun making the movie. It did seem like a lot of the actors were chosen simply because they were popular at the time (e.g. Sofia Vergara, Vanessa Hudgens, Lady Gaga) but others were surprisingly well-cast, such as Mad Mel Gibson. Amber Heard seems like someone who is supposed to be famous, but I looked her up on IMDB and the only thing she's been in which I have watched is Zombieland. I was pleased to see the return of the three nurses from the first movie (Marci Madison and the Avellan twins); somewhat less-pleased that Jessica Alba dies in the first few minutes. And seriously, who the heck keeps deciding to give Michelle Rodriguez work?? She must have one of the best agents in Hollywood.

So, in summary, a fun movie but getting far too cheesy for its own good. If the third movie - Machete Kills Again... In Space - ever comes out I think it will be well-nigh unwatchable.
 
Terminator Genisys

(Warning: Includes ALL the spoilers!)

This movie, the fifth in the series but "officially" the third because the previous third and fourth are so bad that they don't exist, has pretty much split critics down the middle. It is either hated or loved (or, to lesser degrees, disliked or not minded). I thought it was great! Supremely better than three and four, not as good as one and two obviously, but good enough for me to agree with James Cameron that it is a worthy third installment. There are various dumb bits in it (including Jai Courtney), some messy parts of the script, some unnecessary extras, but overall really very good. I would recommend it.

Arnold Schwarzenegger returns to his iconic character and gets to fight the original 1980s T-800. Emelia Clarke actually looks really similar to Sarah Connor/Linda Hamilton and plays the role very well. Jai Courtney as Kyle Reese... um, I think the best you could say is that you get used to him being there. He cannot act at all, and worse he looks nothing like the original actor Michael Bien. In connection with that, one particular thing which gets me with this movie is that in the original Terminator the human resistance were basically starving hobos with guns who were hiding in tunnels underground and eating rats; in this one, that same resistance is well-fed and apparently has ample gym time at their disposal.

Other things which grated with me included the physically-impossible bus flip in which even in the action-movie universe Kyle Reese would be dead several times over, not just have a little trickle of blood on his temple. The punks who the T-800 kills at the start of the original movie are also in this movie but played by different actors (of course) - yet they not only look like entirely different people but the make-up crew didn't even try to match their hairstyles to the originals (and they seemingly deliberately reversed the roles of Brian Thompson and Bill Paxton for some reason). It was incredibly distracting because this is such a well-known scene (watch the comparison clip on Youtube to see what I'm talking about - the link is at the bottom of this review). One of the reasons this was so irritating was that they went to great lengths otherwise to recreate the arrivals of the T-800 and Kyle Reese (right down to getting the exact same clothing and even the 1980s-style Nike shoes that Kyle steals from the store), and yet they utterly mutilate the punk scene.

The basic story is that Kyle Reese is sent back to 1984 to save Sarah Connor, but when he gets there he finds that timeline has been altered - a liquid metal T-1000 had been sent back to the 1970s to kill Sarah as a nine-year -old girl but she was rescued by a reprogrammed T-800 who then raised her. Another (or the same?) T-1000 is waiting for Kyle Reese when he arrives, but he is saved by Sarah and her T-800 (and they have already destroyed the other T-800 from the original timeline - er, apparently there can be multiple timelines all running in the same place.... yeah, the movie doesn't make a lot of sense when you try to think about it but hey, it's time travel. It's all timey-wimey and stuff). There's a short re-enactment of the chases from Terminator 2, then the T-1000 is destroyed with acid which when you're thinking about it afterwards makes the whole inclusion of the T-1000 seem a bit cheap and pointless. Almost like it was only in there as a cash-grab for the movie. Sarah and her T-800 have plans to go forward in time to 1997 to stop Judgement Day - they have built a time machine in a basement, as one does, but needed the CPU from the original timeline's T-800 to make it work. However Kyle has been having flash-backs of a childhood he never had in which he was talking to himself in a mirror saying that the Genisys programme would be going live in 2017 and that would be the rise of Skynet. (Again, don't really try to think about it too much!). So Sarah and Kyle go to 2017, and the T-800 stays behind because it has exposed metal from fighting the T-1000 so cannot use the time machine. Once they get to 2017 they meet up with the T-800, now 33 years older, and - Surprise! - John Connor is there too! Whaaaaaaaat!? Yeah, it turns out that John has become a new kind of Terminator, a hybrid man-machine, and he is evil. Actually it wasn't really a surprise - they gave the whole thing away in the goddam trailers!! Back to the Terminator 2 "homages" now, where the final battle takes place in the Cyberdyne building. The T-800 and whatever the heck the John Terminator is called (T-John?) get destroyed in the time machine which John had built at Cyberdyne - there are time machines all over the show in this movie! - but luckily the T-800's CPU ends up in a pool of polyalloy and it is reborn as a liquid metal Terminator. So everyone is happy. Sarah survives. Kyle Reese survives. The T-800 survives and I guess gets an upgrade. Sarah's son and saviour of the resistance is dead.. oh, bummer for him then. And the world is saved! Yay! Except nobody - not even the T-800 itself - seems to realise that the T-800's very presence proves that nothing has changed at all and that sequels are always inevitable.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wU5VUa3sJM
 
I'm waiting for the new Mission Impossible movie - the promos look really promising.
I'm not a Mission Impossible fan, but I saw the trailer today and it does look very exciting. I think I may go watch it when it comes out.

I also saw the trailers for Ant-Man which looked mind-numbingly bad (oh Marvel, how far have you sunk that you need to scrape this from the bottom of the barrel?) and The Man From U.N.C.L.E which also looked remarkably stupid.
 
The Hundred-Foot Journey - 8/10

You know what? I enjoyed this movie! My wife was flicking through Netflix, found it, and started watching, so I missed the first 10 minutes, but I am glad I watched the rest. The movie follows an Indian family as they move to a little village in France and open an Indian restaurant.... 100ft away from a one-star Michelin restaurant. If you enjoyed 'The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel' and 'Chocolat', then this movie is definitely for you. Funny, romantic, and touching.
 
Home - 6/10

Sheldon is much funnier in 'The Big Bang Theory'. I found 'Oh', the main character, to be annoying. I am not sure if it was his Yoda-like sentences or him just being a bumbling idiot, but this movie just wasn't for me. Oh (no pun intended), the soundtrack was all from Rihanna, because, you guessed it, she voiced the other lead character. Watch it when it comes to free-tv.
 
What We Did On Our Holiday

This may lack the adventure and action found in the other movies which have been reviewed, but its a movie so hey ho.

I got round to watching this a few weeks ago, when it came out I was desperate to see it, but forgot about it completely, if you've seen the BBC 1 comedy series outnumbered, then this is for you; it was created by the same people, so shares similarities, ie dysfunctional family. It takes them up to Scotland for a party for their 70 odd dad/ grandad, but certain events happen which I will not reveal. In this film you can get laughs, tears (from sadness and laughing) and hear Ben Miller's Scottish Accent!

I would give it 8 1/2 out of 10 (not quite as good as outnumbered, but still hilarious!).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top