Reviews written by registered user
|818 reviews in total|
Ragnarok is a fun movie with a lot of cool stylized actions scenes.
It's never boring, but it is very different in tone than the two
previous films, thanks mostly to director Taika Waititi. I recognize
his style of humor in movies like Boy and What we Do in Shadows, which
he also directed.
It's really enjoyable, and the light tone helps for it to be entertaining. Although if you are following the Marvel Cinematic Universe, especially if you have seen the other two Thor movies, The whole purpose of Ragnarok is for Thor to stop his sister, the God of Death (played by Cate Blachett) form ending Asgard, and there are a lot of parts of the movie that I did feel should have been more serious but were disregarded for the lighter tone, but I must admit this is a minor flaw in a movie that was just so amazing.
It's like when film critics say, it's a thrill ride, they are totally talking about blockbusters like Thor: Ragnarok. It's a big adventure with a lot of things going on, done in this 80s Sci-fi and Fantasy style.
Chris Hemsworth was everything as Thor: an action hero, charming, dramatic, just perfect star power, and Tom Hiddleson once again kills it as his brother Loki, who takes more of a heroes journey having to help his brother save all the Realms form their newly discovered older sister Hella, the goddess of Death, played by Blachett, who does not normally do movies like this and after seeing her play a great marvel villain here, I hope she'll decide to do more. The cinematic Universe's first female villain (or rather lead antagonist), Blachett does beautiful and deadly all at the same time. She looked sooooo good in that costume, and she brought the right type of evil. It's a shame she did not get more screen time (Feel like it had something to do with the fact that she was a woman), but Blachett's time as a villain had to be shared with the other antagonist in the film, The Grnadmaster, played by the great Jeff Goldblum who also gave a stellar performance as a cosmic being who runs the contest of champions Thor ends up being force to participate in where he meets his old Avengers buddy, the Hulk (Making up for the fact that he was not in Captain America: Civil War). The movie also features Tessa Thompson who plays Valkyrie, and gave some pretty cool fight scenes.
Ragnarok is a huge story almost like a Star Wars film, it's got everything, and does everything and the humorous undertone does make it work better (Though I think I still prefer Empire Strikes back over return of the Jedi)
Based on a true story (That was first turned into a book) Stronger
almost feels like a section of the movie Patriot's Day which is also
about the bombing at the Boston marathon in 2013 (And I feel got the
same small amount of promotion for it). It's like Jeff Bauman (who
Gyllenhaal plays) was a subplot in Patriot's Day and they decided to
extended that subplot into a larger film that not only goes over his
experience that day, but tells his story about his year after the
bombing with him adjusting to the lost of his legs
I though the picture painted a realistic picture of what it's like not to have two legs. I have both my legs so it's hard to fully imagine what this man went through. Even less now as I see Gyllenhaal brilliantly showing us a life with no legs. It was a pretty good performance.
I'm still getting use to an age where something happens in recent history barely four years ago and we make a movie about it, but it is indeed a good movie. Just like Patriot's Day, I just wished both movies were promoted better so everyone could had went to the theater to see them.
Wheelman seems to be a lot of things at once. It's nothing I have not
seen before but a great mixture of everything I love about car movies.
With most of the movie taking place in a car, Frank Grillo plays the Wheelman, a driver just trying to pay his dues for the people who looked out for him while he was in jail, but in the process of doing his "work" someone pulls a double cross on the job.
It's very weird how Wheel man reminds me of a lot of movies. From the 80s style found in the movie Drive, to the 1978 movie The Driver (In which Ryan O'Neal plays a Wheelman), to a Tom Hardy movie called Locke (Which completely takes place in a car), but despite what looks like on the surface as Wheelman coping the tone and style of a lot of films, It's saving grace is that it does a excellent job putting it all together. I don't know how hard or time consuming doing production in a car is, but I can see the filmmakers did a solid job with it, and good work Frank Grillo for keeping us interested in his character while in the car.
Sound is very important in this movie. It's interesting. instead of the usually burn rubber sounds we are use to, most of the car sounds come form inside the car. Crisp details from the backing up beep to the windshield wiper, puts us in the environment of the car. Netflix films and shows love to add background environment sounds, and this time it really makes the movie. Especially, at times when the Wheelman is on the cell phone communicating with actors who are not on screen.
So, not bad. I'm seeing a lot of different elements to a lot of different movies all warped up in one package and I like it a lot.
So as far as sequels go, this is a very typical one. I went to see Boo
2 because though Tyler Perry movies are not really my thing, I actually
enjoined the first Boo, so I took the chance that I would enjoy the
I totally did, too. It's not as good as the original. As much as I found the original funny, it also had an attempt to show family values in it that was not lost on me. This time around their attempt (If there was one cause I did not see it) was literally taken out to make more room for laughs. In a lot of ways it made the film like the second episode of one of Perry's shows (Which I like more than his movies), as it seems nobody learned the lesson from the first Madea Halloween.
Case in point, like the original, Boo 2 is about Joe trying to discipline his entitled daughter, Tiffany. Once again she defies her overbearing father's wishes in order to go to a party at midnight in the woods at a camp where a bunch of people got murdered. Now I understand the natural urge for a teenager not to want to listen to her dad, but when your aunt is someone like Madea, you would think you would think twice about this woman coming to track you down, especially after what happen in the last movie.
Like the last film, Boo 2 focuses on Madea and her friends running into terror and danger while trying to get to Tiffany. The film likes to Parody current themes in horror like with influences of Korean horror and it also pokes a nod to old school Horror with the film taking place at a camp and the underage teens being hunted by a man with a mask and a chainsaw.
Overall, I much prefer the more light hearted Tyler Perry movies. Sometimes his stuff can be too over dramatic for me, but I seem to like it when he goes for straight up Sitcom style on us and that's Boo 2!
It's crazy and filled with laughs and no matter where it fails compare to the first one, we are there to laugh and that's what makes this sequel enjoyable.
It's unique cause it feels like a Slasher film, but the slasher has
only one victim. Her name is Tree, she's not the nicest chick at
college and kinda deserves getting hit with a blunt object until her
skull splits into two. So when it happens, you're like "good". Only
problem is a freak electrical problem seem to give her the ability to
relive her birthday over and over again, which means getting killed
over and over again until she can figure out who hates her that much to
do something violent about it.
It's a good movie simply for the fact that it's a bad one. The very fact that they point out that the film is the exact same plot as Groundhog Day (and the Netflix movie Naked with Marlon Wayans and the Tom Cruse movie Edge of Tomorrow which really reminds me of this flick), gives it the good excuse to be campy.
Happy Death Day goes for the complete fun factor, completely focus on the homage to horror films rather just being one.
Overall, it's entertaining. I recommend.
I had a feeling that the title was propaganda to get me into the seats.
After all, Wonder Woman was one of 2017's best pictures, so I figure
the title of this movie (as well as the well done poster) was a way to
get butts into the seats. Not that I want my money back, cause it was
an excellent movie. It was lots of fun and it made me chuckle a lot of
times, but if your here because you want to learn more about Wonder
Woman, the movie is not designed like that specifically.
What I knew about William Marston before was that he created Wonder Woman (right!), the same guy who created Wonder Woman created the lie detector test (But the movie does point out how much his wife contributed to this) and that the original Wonder Woman comics was filled with images of bonding and S&M (Which according to the movie visualized Marston's theories on human behavior) . What I did not know is that this guy was in a three way relationship with his wife and one of his students. This part of the movie seems to take center stage above anything else.
Once again ,I'm not complaining, cause it made for one of the most interesting love stories I've ever seen. Not really into romance movies, and you can make an argument that it's not, but what stands out for me in this film is a story about three people trying to be in a loving relationship with one another in a world that's still not really ready for what is going on here. So, it was a romance film done differently, under a mask of the drama and the biography( How very Superhero-like of them).
Four people in the woods. One is trying to find the money he lost at
any cost. The other three found that money and want to keep it...At any
Very straight forward picture with a story that works, but it does not stick out as anything special.
The plot seems more like a thriller but once Cusack officially gets into the mix he's a very light hearted villain (He looks like a prettier Nick Cage in this). Not a blood trusty bad guy, just a man who wants to keep the hard earn money he stole. (and the overall reason for him being a lackluster villain does makes the picture more interesting) . The other three actors in where good as well (The kid from boyhood is in it, that's cool). I loved the realistic interaction of the three people whose friendship was coming apart anyway and how this money dismantled it even further.
It's actually a great plot, but it does fall on deth's ears for me. Just not clicking fully.
Not the most exciting film, it's a horror mystery, that's more mystery than horror and the mystery was not that interesting. It was about a faithless journalist trying to prove God is not real by doing a story about a Priest in jail for murder because an exorcism went wrong. Sounds like a good story. The setting of the movie also seemed good as it takes place in Romania, during a holiday that, according to the film is similar to Halloween, and when I herd this at the beginning of the film I was jazzed to watch a Halloween picture during the season. The Crucifixion shows a lot of elements of mystery and sexuality that makes if feel like a homage of Hammer Horror, but it falls a little short from become a classic of even a cult classic, real short.
So, I'm not surprised that Jackie Chan has a dramatic side. I've seen
shades of it in the latest installments of his hit Chinese franchise,
Police Story. He also did a war movie in China, called Railroad Tigers
that showed this off, but the Foreigner puts him on a new level. I
don't think I've see Chan seek vengeance for a wrong doing like I've
Chan plays an old man. It's funny watching Jackie Chan have to slow it down knowing that even at 63 he is far more impressive than what he's doing in this film, but Chan is still bedazzling at half the pace. A group of terrorist kill his daughter and the old man is on the loose trying to find the names of the men who did it, of which his focus is mostly on the man he thinks has the names, the head of the IRA played by Pierce Brosnan, who's working once again with director Martin Campbell who directed him in Golden Eye.
With Brosnan on broad, you can feel a little pressure coming off of Jackie's overall performance in his first dramatic leading role in a western movie. Brosnan is the focus of a subplot about a once terrorist trying to keep his now good name. His support picks up all the slack in the film, and allows Jackie to say very little and let his actions speak louder, making him very entertaining
It's enough of the Jackie we know so it does not isolate us and enough of a different side of Chan we don't see, and he pulls it off.
Loved how sick and psychotic this it started out. After the events of
Curse of Chucky, you would have thought Andy, the kid from the original
movie would have been done with his good guy doll ( I would have
assumed it's been over with him since Bride of Chucky since he was not
in it, but...). The problem is that he's still being hunted by the
ghost of Charles Lee Ray.
But just like with the start of Bride, the Chucky era of this slasher film franchise puts Andy as a back story to Nica, played by Fiona Dourif (Who happens to be Brad Dourif's daughter (You know, the guy who plays the voice of Chucky in all the movies (That's got to be a record for slashers, right?). Nica who was in the last movie returns and was put in a insane asylum because everyone (including herself) believes that she made up the fact that a toy from the 80s was a killing machine, but of course we know the truth, especially when Chucky comes after her, and like with Bride of, he's not alone (Sort of)
One of the factors of not using the title Child's Play anymore and sticking with the Chucky titles is pointing out the sure camp that Chucky has become. No longer scary or met to be scary, the movies are fully fun to watch. Adding to the fun is the a fact that Chucky's doing his killing in a confined space like a loony bin filled with, what's on the surface, seems like helpless victims but deep inside are just as derange as the monster itself.
Cult of Chucky seems to focus on this factor a lot more. The actual killing is inventive but not as awesome as I would expect of a Slasher from the 80s (A bit of a mix of modern special effects with not so interesting characters). It's got a psychological thriller edge to it that makes it a better movie than any of the slasher horror parts, but Chucky can still horrify you in the most demented way possible. After all, it's a doll on a murderous rampage.
So not a bad entry in the Chucky titled era of the Child' Play film franchise. It's more for fans of the series which is great in this day of nostalgia, very trivial, but a lot of fun.
|Page 1 of 82:||          |