Reviews

7 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
2/10
The movie is twice as lame as the title.
23 May 2009
This is an example of welfare for once famous actors. Poorly written, directed, and videotaped, with one dimensional caricatures, instead of characters, who are used as plot pawns to advance a story that is so obvious, you see what is coming from the next county.

I gave it a view, as I do all western type films, because it is a uniquely American genre that I wish would be rediscovered by present day film makers.

A simple story, about a slower pace of time, doesn't have to be obvious and contrived, it can ring true and be compelling, but this effort is simply not up to the task.
18 out of 28 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3:10 to Yuma (2007)
3/10
3:10 means 3 out of 10
14 January 2008
Possibly the stupidest western I've ever seen, and I've seen a lot of them. A great cast with good acting all around and realistic costumes and set, can't save this film from a ridiculously unbelievable plot. If you want to make an unlikely hero, at least make him likable. Not a suffering loser who does what is supposed to be construed as a heroic act but is in fact a suicide leaving his family to fend for its self. And if the villein is true to his character through 9/10's of the movie, you had better give him a better reason to change character than to respond to a two line lame explanation by the "hero". I haven't seen the original, but I can't believe it's this stupid, if so, why did they re-make it?
1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
2 hour video game
7 January 2008
Before the movie begins is an advertisement for "The Bourne Ultimatum video game". This was the first clue as to whether the third installment of this series would return to it's superior beginnings (The Bourne Identity) or continue in the ridiculously over the top style of the Bourne Supremacy. When the editing of a movie takes center stage over story, acting, and every other element, this is what you get; a relentless roller coaster ride that defies common sense, emotion, wonder or anything else, because it's moving so fast all you can do is hang on and wait until it's over. For adrenal junkies this is just the ticket to pound you into submission. Don't expect anything else and you may enjoy this film more. I own Bourne Identity, and have watched it many times, and each time it is enjoyable. That is not the case with either the Bourne Supremacy or Ultimatum. Once was more than enough. Cutting a film so that no shot lasts more than 1/2 second may get your heart pounding, but it does little else. I sincerely hope Doug Liman returns to direct episode 4, as they hint there may be another. Director Paul Greengrass should be put out to pasture.
7 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Tombstone (1993)
4/10
The Marvel comic version of the gunfight at the OK corral
29 January 2006
I own just about every quality western ever made. I don't own this movie, because it's about the most inaccurate, unrealistic, over blown, western I've ever seen. We've got gunfighters flicking their wrists while shooting, much as if they are really fly fishing. They'd be lucky to hit the ground six feet in front of themselves, if not their own feet.

Tombstone was a boom town at this time, not a city of sophisticates, wearing the latest fashions from Paris. Watch "Once upon a time in the west", to see how a real western should look.

At one point Wyatt laments about the one gun fight he's been in, and about having to kill a single man. Soon after he's mowing them down, by the dozens often shooting them in the back, as they try to escape. So much for being the hand of justice.

The acting is good, Kilmer excels, as does Russell, and others. But the direction and writing is so heavy handed, I rather be dragged through cactus than have to sit through it again.
14 out of 34 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Before Sunset (2004)
6/10
Good 1st Act. Where's the rest of the movie?
27 December 2004
I was eager to see this movie, as I loved "before sunrise". The dialog was real and believable, and yet, however accurate the criticisms of modern life were, it became too mundane. It was a little too real, like watching Julie Roberts change a diaper, yeah it's "Julia Roberts" Whoo Hoo, but ultimately... it's just someone changing a diaper. As we find out how profound of an effect each of them had on the other, I would have thought they'd run out of small talk much sooner, faced with the reality of a life's obsession presenting itself in person.

At 80 minutes, including two sets of credits, there was time to delve much deeper into the possibilities. And the question looming large: "If given a second chance at a past romance, would you do anything differently?" is hinted at, but not played out. It felt like watching your sexy neighbors all through dinner, and just when they move towards the bedroom, the lights go out. Yeah, I have an imagination, but when I go to the movies, I suspend my own fantasies for awhile, and pay to see someone else's. And they weren't delivered.

Rather than a number grade, I would give this movie an I (for incomplete).
3 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Supremely annoying camera work and film editing.
9 December 2004
Camera tricks do not make a movie.

The cinematographer of this film should be locked in a room with a 35mm camera, a tripod and a bowl of fruit. And see if he can learn how to take clear interesting pictures. This visually fractured and unrealistic presentation looks like the work of a speed freak or a someone with an advanced palsy condition. There is no moment in the film where the director,(who clearly shares in blame for this panic fest) allows his actors to seduce the camera and thereby generating genuine interest. Instead he relies on ultra rapid cutting to create a false sense of tension and suspense.

The fight scenes, may as well been computer generated. They are nearly unintelligle, due to their obviously accelerated, and visually disoriented presentation.

Bring back the original team.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
what's the difference between watching this movie and .....
15 June 2004
getting on the wrong bus going nowhere surrounded by people you don't like or have even the slightest interest in? Nothing.

The many holes in the plot are to be overlooked in lieu of the action, little as there is. When you have to ask "why would he do that?" only to have your answer be...oh I see...so we have a way to link to the next ridiculous scene, you start to watch the clock more than the movie, because there is clearly no need to watch for details since it all leads nowhere anyway. I hope someone was holding a gun to director William Friedkin's head

saying something like, "you'll make this movie or I blow your friedkin' head off". And he made the film, just not very well. Rent before you buy, as even if there is only one copy in the store,

it will be available.
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed