Movie review rant

[DavidBrown]

Looper

Interesting concept, and some great special effects. I wasn't too thrilled with what 2044 looked like, but it didn't really detract from the storyline. As welll as Bruce Willis it also stars Joseph Gordon-Levitt (whom I've never heard of), Emily Blunt, and some brief appearances by Jeff Daniels and Piper Perabo. There's also a kid - Pierce Gagnon - who is pretty good for his age.

I liked it, and if you like sci-fi, especially with a time-travel element, you'll probably enjoy this (although the time-travel concept is fairly basic if you're used to the non-linear variability of temporal mechanics explored in the Star Trek franchise).



Hix

The director of "Looper" also made a terrific movie called "Brick" with Joseph Gordon-Levitt. It is a "Maltese Falcon" type film noir mystery with high school students. Highly recommended. Thanks for the "Looper" recommendation. It is coming out in the U.S. this weekend.

 

[Hix]

Taken 2

Set shortly after the first movie, this time it's Liam Neeson who is taken (with his wife) and his daughter helps to find and rescue him. Instead of Paris, this movie is set in Istanbul, with narrow cobbled streets and old decrepit buildings (and virtually no trees or greenery anywhere). A little slow to start but once it gets going it doesn't stop.

If you liked Taken, you'll enjoy Taken 2.

Also saw the trailer for Skyfall - looks great (as expected) - and for a movie called Argo, which looks good, and the reports I've read online suggest it is brilliant. Directed by and starring Ben Affleck, it's based on a true story about some American diplomats in hiding in Tehran after the siege of the US Embassy in 1979 and 52 Americans were taken hostage. At the Toronto Film Festival it received great reviews and applause from the audience at it's conclusion.

Looking forward to seeing both movies.



Hix

 

[nanoboy]

Taken 2

Set shortly after the first movie, this time it's Liam Neeson who is taken (with his wife) and his daughter helps to find and rescue him. Instead of Paris, this movie is set in Istanbul, with narrow cobbled streets and old decrepit buildings (and virtually no trees or greenery anywhere). A little slow to start but once it gets going it doesn't stop.

If you liked Taken, you'll enjoy Taken 2.

I was fortunate enough to have visited Istanbul back in about 2005. I quite enjoy seeing locations in movies that I have visited, and indeed, when I go on holiday, I try to specifically visit locations from movies that I have seen.

For example, I went looking for the door on the bridge just next to the London Aquarium that James Bond went into to get to the disused tube station (where I think he got the invisible car). And I also went to the church/piazza in Venice that Indiana Jones emerged from the sewer in 'The Last Crusade'. (I wonder if I took a pic? ) I think I did a self-planned 'Da Vinci Code' tour of Rome too.

Anyway, I thoroughly enjoyed 'Taken 1' and I will definitely check out 'Taken 2'. Cheers.

 

[Chlidonias]

I just got back from watching The Expendables 2.

Hmmmm, where to start.....?

The first movie was kind of fun, pretty stupid of course, and it was really little more than an excuse for Stallone to try and make Statham into his replacement action star, but there was some satisfaction in watching the 80s heroes teaming up. So, stupid but fun. The sequel is just stupid; no fun. Unless you consider ill-timed and badly-written jokes as fun.

The opening sequence of the movie is set in Nepal. A Chinese businessman has been kidnapped so Schwarzenegger had been sent in to rescue him, because when you want to take on the entire Nepalese militia who better for the job than a 70 year old? I suppose. Anyway, Stallone and his lot also turn up and save the day because apparently Schwarzenegger sucks. Then it moves on to the main plot. At least I think there was a plot: it would have been easier to tell if I had been able to understand more than 5% of what Stallone was saying. I mean, seriously, enunciate!!! Christian Bale wouldn’t be able to understand what Stallone was saying through most of this movie! Bruce Willis (outshining most of the cast) sends Stallone et al to find a downed plane which contains a safe which contains a computer which contains a map to a secret mine. Everybody wants this map, although I’m not quite sure why because apparently nobody seems to actually need the map to find it. Then the movie turns into Indiana Jones And The Temple Of Doom, with all the local villagers being used as slave labour to dig for sacred stones – sorry, canisters of plutonium. Just to drive the point home, Jason Statham’s fight with Scott Adkins ends with the latter going head-first into a helicopter’s propellers. Schwarzenegger returns (he says “I’m back!” and in case you missed that he used to be the Terminator there are also a dozen other references through the movie), but he returns in the tunnel-boring machine from Total Recall. It’s just that kind of movie. I guess they saved the day, I’m not sure. There was lots of gunfire if that matters. Fortunately Stallone kept his wits about him enough as screen-writer to ensure he ended the movie in the lamest way possible, just so you would think the rest of the movie was good.


So, on to the cast. The good guys:

*Sylvester Stallone I have to say still suits up believably well as an action star. He certainly doesn’t look his age, and you do believe he could kick your arse into next week. Just don’t expect to know what he’s saying while he does it.

*Arnold Schwarzenegger looks more like your senile doddery old Grandpa than anything, but once he’s got a gun in his hands at the end he, well, looks like your senile doddery old Grandpa with a gun. Scary.

*Bruce Willis. You know, its funny, Bruce started out as a comedian and it wasn’t till Die Hard that he became an action star. Now you’d be hard-pressed to find anyone who thinks of him as anything else but an action star. And he can still pull it off well. Willis and Schwarzenegger together with machine-guns blowing away the bad guys makes this movie worth seeing even if it is a crap movie.

*Dolph Lundgren just resembles some weird science experiment gone wrong from a 60s horror movie. Schwarzenegger even calls him “Frankenstein” at one point, which is spot-on.

*Jason Statham and Stallone once again fill most of the screen time. Ever notice how their surnames have the same first three letters? Weird.

*Terry Crews is back: you know, you’re favourite action star from....er, Everybody Hates Chris...? He has big arms.

*Randy Couture is in there although Heavens knows why because he doesn’t seem to do anything and half the time I thought he was Jason Statham.

*Jet Li is brilliant....for the ten minutes he was in the movie!!! Honestly, the movie has barely started and Jet Li just leaves! What’s up with that?!

*Nan Yu. Jet Li’s replacement. Bad actor. Likes Stallone’s character even though he is 150 years older. Oh, I guess I should mention that Nan Yu is a girl.

*Liam Hemsworth. He’s the brother of Chris Hemsworth from Thor. At the start of the movie he says he is in love with a French girl and he wants to leave the unit to marry her. Guess who dies soon after......

*Chuck Norris, looking curiously like the aging love-child between a chipmunk and Wilson from Home Improvement, appears to have been slotted into the movie simply to be the butt of Chuck Norris jokes. “I heard you were bitten by a king cobra,” says Stallone. “I was. And after four days of agonising pain, the cobra died,” replies Chuck Norris. I’m surprised they didn’t have a CGI fist come out of his beard to punch someone’s head off.

*honourary mention to Charisma Carpenter, Statham’s girlfriend who is in the movie for three minutes. She looks even better now than she did in her Buffy and Angel days.


And the bad guys:

*Jean-Claude Van Damme. He’s the villain. His name is Vilain. Moving on....

*Scott Adkins is Van Damme’s side-kick (pun intended). He is easily defeated by Jason Statham in a very short and boring fight, although in real life Adkins would hand Statham’s arse to him on a plate and make him eat it. If you don’t know who Scott Adkins is, watch the following youtube video of clips from Undisputed 2 and 3. Warning: do not expect this level of martial arts action from The Expendables 2!!

 

[nanoboy]

They aren't making contact in the fight scenes in the Youtube video. As the lemur from Madagascar would say, "they are a bunch of pansies".

(I'll still watch Expendables 2 by the way, if only out of loyalty. I have no problem with Arnold's acting, as I saw his 60 Minutes interview last week, and he is just as wooden in real life. )

 

[Chlidonias]

They aren't making contact in the fight scenes in the Youtube video. As the lemur from Madagascar would say, "they are a bunch of pansies".

that's because they are clips from movies. I've also seen movies where they don't really shoot the bad guys with actual bullets.....

 

[nanoboy]

that's because they are clips from movies. I've also seen movies where they don't really shoot the bad guys with actual bullets.....

I meant that the fight choreography/cinematography is so poor that you can see that they aren't making contact. It looks like they are sparring rather than fighting, so I think Jason would win in a fight, because he makes contact and acts in B-movies rather than Z-movies.

 

[Chlidonias]

I meant that the fight choreography/cinematography is so poor that you can see that they aren't making contact. It looks like they are sparring rather than fighting, so I think Jason would win in a fight, because he makes contact and acts in B-movies rather than Z-movies.

I'd still bet on Adkins. He's a lot faster than Statham, much more athletic, and he's a qualified instructor for the PKA (Professional Karate Association). Statham's a former diver and model.

Either way, the fight scene in Expendables 2 should have been much much better!

 

[PAT]

Today I realised the real problem with cinemas in Australia. One of my friends asked me if I wanted to go see the new Wuthering Heights ("because it has Effy from Skins in it" (and I don't mind a good period drama (especially anything based on the works of the Brontes/Jane Austen))). I saw this movie at the cinema last year when I was in England. Why are we getting it so late?

BTW it's not great and Heathcliff drops the 'C' bomb.

 

[nanoboy]

I'd still bet on Adkins. He's a lot faster than Statham, much more athletic, and he's a qualified instructor for the PKA (Professional Karate Association). Statham's a former diver and model.

Either way, the fight scene in Expendables 2 should have been much much better!

Bah! I did karate with a guy who trained with Steven Segal and I got up to a yellow belt. Then I turned 10 and I became interested in girls and that was the end of karate. Anyway, Adkins looks more like a dancer/poser than a fighter.

I don't think that I will be watching Expendables 2 in the cinema, based on your review.

PAT, Australia just pushes avid movie-goers into the arms of online piracy because you can't get away from the online reviews and celebrity interviews etc. Check my Madagascar 3 review for some stats on when we got that movie relative to other countries.

 

[Chlidonias]

I don't think that I will be watching Expendables 2 in the cinema, based on your review.

that would be my advice.

 

[nanoboy]

Taken 2

Set shortly after the first movie, this time it's Liam Neeson who is taken (with his wife) and his daughter helps to find and rescue him. Instead of Paris, this movie is set in Istanbul, with narrow cobbled streets and old decrepit buildings (and virtually no trees or greenery anywhere). A little slow to start but once it gets going it doesn't stop.

If you liked Taken, you'll enjoy Taken 2.

I just watched the first instalment again, in preparation for seeing part two. The first movie also took a while to get going. Indeed, after meandering through stories that in retrospect were irrelevant to the film, the daughter did not get kidnapped until 25 minutes in! It sounds like Taken 2 might also take that long for someone to get kidnapped. I think that I will still try to catch this one in cinema though because I really enjoyed the last hour of the original Taken.

 

[PAT]

PAT, Australia just pushes avid movie-goers into the arms of online piracy because you can't get away from the online reviews and celebrity interviews etc. Check my Madagascar 3 review for some stats on when we got that movie relative to other countries.

The same could be said for TV as well. And I think kids movies are the worst offenders because people only really go to see them at the cinema to keep their kids happy so it doesn't matter if they've already been released overseas.

 

[nanoboy]

The same could be said for TV as well. And I think kids movies are the worst offenders because people only really go to see them at the cinema to keep their kids happy so it doesn't matter if they've already been released overseas.

With a few if the tv series, we are getting it on free-to-air within a week of the episode airing in America, which isn't too bad I guess. I just find it annoying the way the tv stations move my favourite shows to different time slots at the drop of a hat and may even stop showing it for weeks on end.

I think that they try to time the release if kids movies here with school holidays.

 

[Hix]

I just find it annoying the way the tv stations move my favourite shows to different time slots at the drop of a hat and may even stop showing it for weeks on end.

Moving them around is often due to a drop in ratings. Holding them off for weeks or months is all about the ratings too. You don't show your best during the non-ratings period.



Hix

 

[nanoboy]

Moving them around is often due to a drop in ratings. Holding them off for weeks or months is all about the ratings too. You don't show your best during the non-ratings period.



Hix

Thanks.

I understand the whole ratings thing - I was just stating that I find it to be quite annoying, and it is understandable why in this connected era, people would much prefer to download episodes (legally or illegally) rather than pander to the station's quest for high ratings. One of my colleagues is so passionate about this that he buys episodes of his favourite series weekly on iTunes - so he says anyway.

Similarly, I am sure there is a reason why we always seem to get movies in cinemas after most of the rest of the world.

 

[Hix]

Similarly, I am sure there is a reason why we always seem to get movies in cinemas after most of the rest of the world.

Not always - Looper (mentioned above) was released in Australia before anywhere else in the world.

But moving the shows around gives me the irrits. I set the recorder fior a certain time each week, and then they change it. Usually when I'm overseas on holidays. That's why I said in the TV shows thread that I don't watch Big Bang Theory but I have the first 5 seasons on DVD.



Hix

 

[nanoboy]

Well speak of the devil. Looks like I am not alone.
TV no-show for networks that are too slow

 

[Hix]

Killing Them Softly

When I saw this advertised at my cinema, and I saw the synopsis, I decided to ignore it because it didn't sound all that gripping. Then I saw an ad on TV, with Brad Pitt, James Gandolfin, Ray Liotta and Ben Mendelsohn and I thought it might be OK.

I was wrong.

While the actors do a good job, the screenplay is a letdown. I have no idea what Gandolfini's character was doing in the movie at all, because the character contributed absolutely nothing to the plot. But he did fillout about 15 minutes with all his domestic-life drivel.

I'm sure there was some hidden messages, one was, I think, about the state of America today (it was set during the last Presidential election, and the final scene includes an Obama speech made after he won, I assume), which had also impacted upon the gangster scene as organised crime had gone 'corporate' and everything had to be approved by a committee. The second message, I think, was about the sad life of a criminal in jail and after release, and it's impact upon his sexlife, marriage etc.

Even the opening was annoying for the first minute - I have no idea what the director was thinking, but I thought the movie was somehow damaged.

Cinematography was really good, with some great slowmotion special effects at one point. But not enough to save the movie.

For me it was a waste of money - not just mine, but the 18 million it cost to make. That money would have done lots more good if given to a charity.

If you like gangster/mob movies then you might enjoy this on a DVD rental or free-to-air TV. But I'm tempted to go straight back to the cinema to see something else - anything else - better just to replace the memories of a couple of hours where I would have been more entertained had I been asleep.

Hix

 

[Hix]

Argo

They say if you fall off a horse you should get back on immediately, so after the disappointment of yesterday (see last post) I went to see a movie that was more confident would be entertaining.

And Argo delivers. The action starts right from the beginning, and although it slows down a little at one point, by the middle of the movie the action returns and continues till the end. Suspense through most of the movie. Great acting and script, and great direction from Affleck. And a great story.

And it's based on a true story. Set over November 1979 - January 1980 it tells of six American diplomats hiding out in Tehran after the US Embassy was besieged by revolutionaries demanding the return of the Shah, who had fled to the USA.

Something I found interesting was at the end of the film as the first credits start to appear they show images of the original six hostages and you can see how very similar the actors were to them. Still images from that time were shown alongside recreations from the movie. This was accompanied by a voice-over from ex-President Jimmy Carter which sounded like it was recorded especially for the movie.

As I said previously, a great story and very entertaining.



Hix