jake-179

Should have called this movie "Plain" because it was so boring. Paper thin characters, very little character motivation, and the plot is propelled by characters doing stupid, unmotivated actions that the writers didn't bother to think through. Right off the bat the plane hits extremely bad turbulence. Butler, being the pilot, activates the "fasten your seatbelts" light. Then he immediately gets up, leaves the controls of the plane, so that he can walk around the cabin & act like a stewardess. I couldn't believe how dumb that part of the movie was & it happened right at the beginning. Immediately the plane hits more turbulence & the pilot smashes his head in to a bulkhead, giving him a mild concussion & blood streaming in to his eyes. This was so ridiculous it was comical. I was half expecting Butler to have a comedic line like, "Oh, that's why the sign says fasten your seatbelts!" This movie is marred by that kind of stupidity & sloppy writing. Upon crash landing Butler jettisons all the fuel. This is standard for crash landings because you don't want the plane to burst in to flames, which it very well could if the gas tanks were full. So he dumps all the fuel. It is a dramatic scene with nicely done special effects were we can see the fuel dumping out of the plane before they crash land. Then, later at the end of the movie, they jump back in the plane & take off again to fly to safety. It is clearly stated that they have a range of about 300 miles. Where did they get all that fuel? You know how far you can fly a plane after you jettison all the fuel? Zero miles. Not 300 miles, zero miles. I have to wonder if the writers included the specific number of "300 miles" as a range for the aircraft as an attempt to make a sly knot to "The 300," Butlers action movie about the Spartans (which, by the way, was a much better movie). After crashing on the island Butler sets off to find help or a radio. Why not stay with the plane & await rescue? Oh, the transponder isn't working. Uh, yes, the transponder would, in fact, still be working. Transponders are built to survive even if the plane smashes in to a mountain & explodes so I found this to bit another example of stupid, lazy writing. Butler decides to take the violent handcuffed prisoner with him on his adventure in to the jungle. Even though the felon had just attacked the passengers for very little provocation, Butler decides to let him out of his cuffs. No real reason is given. He didn't earn Butler's trust. Butler just takes his handcuffs off. I assume it was the same idiotic decision making that led him to leave the controls of the plane & walk around the cabin during severe turbulence at the beginning of the film. The movie is also severely lacking in any surprises or twists to the plot. It's nothing but a very, very straightforward "plot" (if you can call it that) & I found it very disappointing to the point of being bored.

Don't waste your time with this movie. For some reason when this movie came out around 2011 Hollywood was making several similar movies, including Baby Driver, and, in fact, Ryan Gosling himself made another movie called The Place Beyond The Pines with basically the same premise: a guy who can drive a car or motorcycle faster and better than anyone else does criminal jobs for money on the side. Seems like it could be a cool idea but Ryan Gosling and his trademark deadpan, emotionless, blank face acting turn it in to boring garbage. His character portrayal in this movie is the same slow, boring garbage we saw in Blade Runner where he was playing an emotionless robot. Many aspects of the plot didn't make really make a lot of sense. He is suppose to be this super pro, high level criminal operator, but he gets mixed up with low level, low brow thugs for basically NO reason. He steals cars to perform his heists. This honestly would be a bad move for a pro driver. How does he know the particulars of the car he is stealing? A pro driver knows his car from bumper to bumper. The car he steals could have a blown rod for all he knows! This would be a bad move. Also, at the end, when he has possession of the money, he literally calls the mob boss and offers to hand it over to him no questions asked, and the only condition is that he is let go. But Ron Perlman insists that he must not be let go and must die. Why? Wouldn't it make more sense at that point for the two of them to team up? Gosling's character pulled off the heist as requested and got away, and is offering up the money which would complete the pre arranged bargain. So why not just take the money and then give the driver another job? Sloppy, stupid writing like this is replete throughout the movie and was very annoying while watching the movie. And why was he wearing his Hollywood latex mask while hunting Perlman at the end? Seemed like that was going to have more of a payoff, but really it seemed it didn't even need that mask, especially while he was driving through the dark of night. The movie has some good points. It was shot very nicely, beautiful camera work and lighting, and there are a couple of decent car chases. But for a movie called "Drive," I think there needs to be more than a couple of car chases. This movie doesn't exactly fire on all cylinders. I would say this movie is about as exciting as speeding through a school zone, and just as dumb. I also found the conclusion of the movie to be as disappointing as the rest of the movie. It really stuck out to me that the movie was anticlimactic and disappointing. At the very least you would think that the guy would get his girl and her kid, and the three hapless characters could find a way to have a little hope in an otherwise bleak existence. But no, the moviemakers wouldn't even give the audience that morsel of satisfaction. It basically ends with Gosling just driving away. I suppose the screenwriter thought this would be dark and edgy but I found it completely unsatisfying. It just felt lazy.

Have you ever thought to yourself, "I sure would like to sit around for a couple of hours & watch a movie about a bunch of old people drinking water?" Of course you haven't because that movie would bore you to death. But if you have thought that then this movie is for you! Yes, there is more to it than that, but honestly, not much more. It's suppose to be a suspenseful, slow-paced thriller. There is very little suspense & plenty of slow-pacing. Lot's of beautiful footage of people drinking water. Verbinsky delivered on the cinematography, I can hand that to him. But the movie literally goes nowhere special, & to top it off, it makes almost zero sense. Have you ever heard the term, "That's a long walk for a very short drink of water?" That phrase works perfectly describing this pile of garbage. If you are looking for a movie to bore you to death, or at least help you fall asleep from boredom, then this movie will probably fit that bill. I decided to give this movie a try because I had seen the clips of the guy locked in the isolation chamber while being swarmed by giant eels. I thought that looked creepy & I was intrigued. Let me save you a couple of hours by telling you that it isn't what you might think. It's just nonsense. It literally doesn't add up to anything & ultimately the movie makes zero sense. What's the deal with the bad guy making masks out of faces? How does he do that & why? Who knows? It isn't explained in the movie. Seems like something that should have been sewn up at the end, but it isn't. Let me finish by describing this movie in the kindest possible fashion that I can: it is a boring pile of garbage & a total waste of time that you should avoid. I am mad at myself for having wasted time watching it.

This movie was so boring it took me three separate attempts to get through it. And even at that, the only reason I decided to finish the movie was so that I could legitimately write this review and warn anyone who is interested to not waste their time and avoid this boring pile of refuse. It is truly unfortunate because the movie is based on the real life adventures of Percy Fawcett who could definitely be compared to Indiana Jones and probably deserves a much more entertaining movie. The movie is shot well, the cinematography was definitely the high point. But what is the point of shooting a movie that is so incredibly boring? To sum up the entirety of the plot, the movie is about a guy who goes to the jungle, finds not much of anything, returns, and then simply disappears never to be heard from again. The end. On a side note, the movie incorrectly depicts Fawcett as having been an infantry officer in the first world war. In fact he was an artillery officer. But that is a minor infraction. The main point of this movie isn't to tell the true story of a real life adventurer. The main point of this movie is to deliver a message of hatred against all white men. The message of this movie is that white men are evil. The movie never misses an opportunity to push a "woke" message. Totally insulting on every level and completely, absolutely boring. Don't waste your time with this garbage. Nothing worth watching happens in the movie. It is just boring.

Boring. This should conclude the review of this movie. I thought it looked interesting, I was wrong. It is not even really fair for me to write this review because, I have to admit, I didn't make it through to the end of this piece of garbage. But that isn't my fault. There is no story here. It is nicely shot, decent technical production value, but beyond that there just isn't anything going on. The movie is so slow I fell asleep twice while trying to get through it. It is almost hypnotic. Please don't waste your time or your money on this turkey. You will be angry with yourself and the filmmakers. Just go watch something else. Anything else! Go watch some paint dry. Or maybe boil a pot of water and watch it heat up the entire time. It will be more satisfying, more exciting, and it will take a lot less time. I hated this piece of trash. Not watchable.

One of the better Sword and Sandal movies from the golden era of the genre (the 1960's). Awesome to see Steve Reeves in his prime. If this movie had been made in the 1980's, no doubt Schwarzenegger would have been the lead. Beautifully shot on location in Egypt, the setting really does seem to improve the movie. Lot's of action, plenty of sword fights and cool set pieces. I think what stood out to me the most about this movie was the similarities to the "Zorro" story. Reeve's character is a bit like a super hero, darting off out of view to change in to a costume (son of Spartacus) that hides his true identity. Zorro would leave his mark, a "Z" carved with his sword. Son of Spartacus leaves an "S" carved or painted in to shields and walls to terrorize the abusive governor. It really did strike me as "Zorro" set in Roman times and happening in Egypt. Check out the size of the mole on the neck of the guy that played Caesar. Holy crap, he should have had that thing surgically removed. It was like a vestigial twin living on his shoulder/neck. Grotesque!

Overall, a good sword and sandal movie that I would have loved when I was 8 - 12 years old. Somehow I only just saw this movie for the first time now that I am 45 years old, but I still enjoyed it.

Let me just say upfront, I can't stand Jon Bernthal. The guy is horribly miscast in this show. I find him completely annoying. I hated him as "Shane" on TWD, and I have been annoyed by him in everything he has ever been in, especially "Fury." So, here, we are getting more of the same. He is a goofy looking person that Hollywood is trying to pass off as "Tough looking." It doesn't work and I am not buying it. Further more, who decided to cast Shohreh Aghdashloo? She is horrifying on screen, ESPECIALLY when she speaks. What is going on with her voice? I shouldn't so harsh, I am guessing that she is probably undergoing some kind of extreme steroid medication. I am sorry if she is suffering from a medical condition, but the fact is, this is a TV show and we are trying to be entertained, not distracted by her man voice. The show itself is boring. Simply boring. The characters are boring and they don't have much to do. This might as well be a show about a Marine suffering from PTSD. It doesn't have to be called "The Punisher," unless the aim of the people who create this show is to punish us, the viewers, with boredom. Don't bother with this mess. If you watch, you will just see Bernthal agonizing over the loss of his family. Boring.

I like a good quasi-futuristic story about a dystopian wasteland. This is not bad, and has some good ideas, but definitely flawed in a few ways. First of all, Mamoa is good, as usual. The other actors, not so much. I have to take a moment here to point out Keanu Reeves has got to be the absolute worst actor to ever make it big. I mean, this guy simply can not act. His performance in most movies can only be described as terrible. He sucks as an actor.

Spoilers! Arlen (Suki) is captured by a barbaric tribe of cannibals. She is immediately used for food, having her arm and leg brutally amputated. Considering that she is very pretty and about 20 years old, I find this to be extremely ridiculous, especially comparing her to the other women that are in the camp, who appear to be either ugly or old. There is NO way that the tribe leaders, such as Mamoa's character, would allow a girl like Arlen to be used up as food. They would have used her as a sex slave, no question about it.

Then Arlen escapes and finds her way to a town called "Comfort." This part reminded me of Fallout 3. I love that game and I like the concepts, and I think they were handled well in this movie. But shortly after she makes her way to this protected city, she is immediately set up with money, a prosthetic leg, a gun, and even a little house. It is never explained how she earns any of the commodities she gets. Why? How? If you are a fan of Fallout, you know that nothing in the wasteland is free. So how did she come to establish herself so well? Inside the city, she seems to have a pretty safe, easy existence. They have electricity and even entertainment. So why would she want to leave? No explanation for that.

I can understand that she falls in love with Jason Mamoa's character, even though it was HIS people who hacked her arm and leg off. But after she makes it back to "Comfort," why on earth would she choose to go back to him? She must know that choosing to be his bride means that she will have to embrace a life of brutal cannibalistic practices. She is OK with that? And if so, then that makes it very difficult for us as an audience to sympathize with her.

So she goes to the DJ (horribly played by Reeves) who has kindly adopted Mamoa's lost daughter. We see that the DJ is treating the little girl very nicely, giving her a very comfortable place to live, not harming her at all, letting her keep her cuddly pet rabbit, and feeding her spaghetti...ya know, instead of HUMAN FLESH. It seemed to me that, in order to retrieve the little girl, Arlen could have easily just approached the DJ character and explained the situation. He didn't seem to be brutal or cruel. He was just an affluent person living within the little society of "Comfort." But instead of explaining the situation and at least asking to take the girl back to her father, Arlen hatches a violent plot to take a hostage at gunpoint and kidnap the little girl. In the course of the kidnapping, it seemed like there were plenty of opportunities for the DJ and his female body guards to take action against Arlen, but they choose not to. Which only furthers our assumption that the DJ is not a violent or cruel character, and he probably would have been open to Arlen simply explaining the situation and asking for the girl in a friendly way. As Arlen leaves the gates of "Comfort," we hear a guard say to her, "Don't come back you crazy bitch." I was thinking that was exactly what I would have said to her. So, again, as an audience member, I have NO sympathy for the protagonist in this movie. Big flaw.

Finally Arlen reunites the little girl with her father, Mamoa. The little girl doesn't really seem that thrilled. She is happy to see her dad, and that is a touching moment. But then, her father, needing food to feed his daughter, takes his daughter's poor little bunny rabbit, rips it's head off and feeds it to her. Seems to me she would have been a lot better off with the DJ. In fact, as she is asking Mamoa for food, she says, " I want spaghetti. The other man gave me spaghetti."

A quick side note about the end scene where Mamoa, the little girl, and Arlen are feasting on the little girl's rabbit: where did they get all those rocks to build the fire pit? They are sitting in the middle of a dry lake bed with no other rocks like that around. Did they run out to the edge of the dry lake bed and gather rocks and then run back to the middle of the dry lake bed? If so, no wonder they were so hungry. They need to be more careful how they expend their energy.

I am glad that I rented this movie instead of buying it on Blue Ray. It was worth watching and it was interesting to see Jim Carey in such a different role (with absolutely no lines whatsoever). Also, when Jim Carey's character trades Mamoa a snow globe for a knife, that seemed like a terrible trade. I seriously doubt that a survivalist like Mamoa would have agreed to such a trade and he would have taken the knife back, probably killing Carey's character in the process.

Let me just say these problems with the movie do not surprise me when I take in to consideration who wrote and directed it. I give it some severed thumbs up, but mostly the severed thumbs are down.

I felt a bit fooled by the trailer on this one. Before I get in to spoilers, I will say that the performances are solid and the movie is tense throughout. The movie subject matter is brutal and unapologetic. This is a low budget thriller movie about survivors in the woods waiting out a biological apocalyptic event. The trailer (as well as the title) lead you to believe that there is going to be a super natural antagonist of some kind that "comes at night." SPOILERS FROM THIS POINT FORWARD There is NOT a supernatural element. And the movie misleads you to believing that there will be some kind of monster revealed at some point. What the movie is really about is the old survival question: you are in your bunker with limited supplies. A family in need comes knocking at your door. What do you do? This question is extremely heavy if you delve in to it. Do you take in the strangers? If so, you risk the fact that they will contaminate you, or use up your supplies, or steal your supplies and slip away in the night. Do you turn them away? Now that they have found you, they could come back with friends and overwhelm you. So do you kill them? How do you mercilessly kill a helpless family just because they stumbled up on you? Will you become a monster like that in the name of survival? These are all the questions that this movie seeks to address, and it does that very well, I think. But the movie suggests that there is an impending, hidden, malevolent force and seems to promise a reveal and a confrontation. The movie does not deliver on that promise, and I think that fact is going to hurt the over-all reviews and reception of this movie. When the movie was over and the lights came up in the theater, I could hear audible groans from the theater-goers around me. It was obvious to me that the audience was disappointed by the third act. The final part of the movie is quite brutal and sad, and, as I said before, it does address the ultimate conclusion of the survival question. But it leaves you wondering what was the thing in the woods? What was it that "comes at night?" The sickness? The disease? Disease comes at night? The movie makers could no doubt claim that, but it is confusing because of the situation with the family dog. At a certain point, the dog hears or senses something deep in the woods, and runs towards it and disappears. Later, the dog magically re-appears in the house - at night, of course - and appears to have been gutted. But I guess the dog was only sick? That was not clear. And it was not explained how the dog got back in the house. We are misled to believe that there is something out there in the woods stalking the survivors in the house. And that plot point is absolutely a false lead. So, it makes for a very disappointing movie watching experience. Very unfortunate since the rest of the movie is pretty good. If they had just only concentrated on the conflict between the two families or maybe fleshed out the menace in the woods, this movie would have been much better.

This movie was pretty much exactly what I expected. Poorly written, but slick production value. The heroic cinematography isn't enough to make up for the lack of characters and overall lack of story. I like movies about anti-heroes, but these characters are not what I would call "anti-heroes." It's just a movie about a bunch of criminals. The rock, or "Driver" is nothing but a bank robber who survived when his crew tried to execute him. What is redeeming about that? The guy is a bank robber! I don't care if he gets revenge or not! Let him die like the rest of the scum bags. The story for the movie didn't work at all. Much of the character motivation is based on these ruthless villains feeling bad about what they did to "The Driver." And in fact, "The Driver" himself starts having second thoughts about his actions. So it boils down to all these despicable characters having a crisis of conscious. People who get in to drugs, assassination, blood money, murder, and bank robbing do so because they LACK a conscious. The story is unbelievable and unrealistic because these types of characters would never be swayed because of a moral conflict. They would get themselves involved in criminal activity because they LACK morality. This ridiculous story line is summed up in the final showdown between "The Driver" and "The Killer." Or, should I say, a LACK of showdown. Supposedly the showdown was shot but edited out of the final movie. Why would the Killer, the guy who has been trying to kill "The Driver" for the whole movie, totally hesitate when he has the drop on him at the end? And then let him live? Ridiculous. Totally out of character for "The Killer." This movie was mess and ultimately did not make sense. And worst of all, this movie has Billy Bob Thornton. That alone is enough reason to skip an entire movie. Billy Bob is literally the WORST actor in the film business. He is so bad I find him completely distracting. He does not mesh well with any other actors and he is ALWAYS the worst actor in any scene in which he is involved. No matter what role, no matter what lines he is saying, he always seems completely out of place. I don't think the guy belongs in the movie business at all. Also, "The Driver" is suppose to be this total bad ass action guy, but most of the movie he has no lines and instead is shown with a forlorn look on his face. Again, because he is having a moral crisis. As I said before, this just simply doesn't work. It is a pile of contradictory ideas that do not coalesce in to story that is interesting. "Faster" is a bad movie. I found it boring. I really expect more from Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson. He seems like he could be such a cool character but all he makes is crappy action movies and silly Disney family fare. I miss the good old days of the 1980's. That decade produced some great action movies. But those days, unfortunately, are long gone. And by the way, the yoga sequence with Oliver Jackson-Cohen, was performed with a stunt double. Oliver tried to say that it was really him doing the hand balancing. It was not.

I was really excited when I first learned they were making a long-anticipated third installment of the Riddick series, and I went to see this movie at the midnight showing opening night. It was every bit as good as I hoped it would be. If you liked the character of Richard B. Riddick from "Pitch Black," "The Chronicles of RIddick," and the video games and animated short, then this movie is an absolute must see. David Twohy and Vin Diesel did a magnificent job of furthering the story of the titular character and delivering a great Space Western, which is my favorite of the Sci Fi genres.

If you like Sci Fi movies, especially Cowboy Style Space Westerns, this movie will not disappoint. Being basically an independent movie, Twohy and Diesel were free to make this movie as the passion project they envisioned, and that always has a better, more sincere quality than most studio projects. They really managed to recapture and further the awesome story of Richard B. Riddick. Riddick is just a great anti-hero, much like the various Clint Eastwood anti-heroes such as Josey Wales and Dirty Harry, or like Kurt Russell's Snake Plissken.

Besides Diesel's bad-ass performance, the story of the movie is really awesome. The thing I liked about it is that it was very tight. Action packed, moving forward with great motivation and clever setups with exciting payoffs. It is great fun to watch how Riddick is out thinking his quarry, setting up traps for his attackers, and managing to out strategize his foes. The writing in this movie is just really smart and well thought out. It makes you sit there in your seat and think, "I wish I could be that smart. I wish I could take on enemies like that. I wish I could come up with a strategy like that if I was ever in a similar situation where I had to fight for my life."

Don't listen to these dumb people who have been ripping on the movie. It is so unfortunate that, for whatever reason, audiences are very harsh when receiving Sci Fi movies. It seems like the nerds just can't wait to start blogging and ripping apart any movie that ISN'T Star Wars or Star Trek. Give this movie a chance! It is a really great story with some very interesting characters that are played against each other from every angle. The movie is totally action packed and is accentuated through out with Riddick's trademark low rumbling voice narrating his inner thoughts. I loved the movie, and I wish there were more movies like this. Totally awesome start to finish. Don't miss out on "RIDDICK." I know that Twohy and Diesel actually have two more sequels in mind, but I doubt we will ever see them. Such a shame. Riddick is an awesome character and very iconic. I wish they could come out with a new Riddick movie every couple of years.

Not a great movie. I had high hopes, I really liked Tom Cruise in MI: 4 Ghost Protocol. That was awesome. I guess I was hoping for more awesome Spy action. But this movie was a let down. It was almost good. But, as usual, Tom Cruise along with shoddy direction made this movie more irritating than entertaining. Tom Cruise is not a good choice for this role. Should have been somebody rough around the edges. Not pretty boy Tom Cruise playing a tough-as-nails Army investigator. I think Dwayne The Rock Johnson would have been better, or somebody like Arnold in his prime. That would be cool. But 5 foot 7 inch Tom Cruise as the ultimate tough guy? No. And the movie is really long. Something like a full two hours. Over long if you ask me. And the direction was slow paced. This felt more like a 1980's style made-for-TV movie than a block buster action flick.

Now there are two good reasons to see the movie: Alexia Fast and Rosamund Pike. One word for two women: Hot! Especially that little hot number Alexia Fast. I want to see more movies with her in them. She looks amazing. Totally hot. And I have had a crush on Rosamund ever since I first saw her in Die Another Day.

The movie could be a good action flick, but the direction is just too slow. The pace is slow. It plods along and fails to get any real momentum. And the whole plot seems a bit trivial. Some kind of hostile take over of a construction company or some stupid thing. Boring.

Also, I have a message for Tom Cruise: Tom! Stop taking your shirt off! Tom has an awkward body and he is looking his age (50 years old!). He just looks out of shape and you can tell he is trying to hold in his gut and his man boobs are sagging almost as bad as Arnold's! It's just sad and ridiculous. Keep your shirt on, Tom!

Now for a little complaint about the end. Waring! Spoiler Alert! Emerson holds Helen hostage, hiding behind her with a gun to her head and a gun pointed right at the door to the room they are in, in the dark, waiting for Reacher to enter. He is completely hidden behind Helen. Suddenly, Reacher jumps in the doorway and fires one perfect shot and kills Emerson immediately. Uh, yeah, right. I don't think so. That was lazy writing. The writers couldn't figure out a cool way for Reacher to save the girl so they copped out. That bothered me. In that scenario, Reacher would have certainly shot the girl and probably gotten shot himself.

This movie is only so-so. Not bad, not great. If you want to see an awesome spy action flick, go see Sky Fall. If you have already seen Sky Fall, go see it again. It will be more fun than this movie. Looks like Jack Reacher was "reaching" for a better film. Too bad he didn't have longer arms.

Just finished watching this, I vaguely remember seeing it when I was a kid. Right off, I must say, pretty awful. The movie is just ridiculous. The only positive I can say about it is, it does sort of embody the basic "1970's Karate Movie" genre. It is hilarious to a certain degree to see "the martial arts master" Chuck Norris running around in his bell bottom pants, lumbering through god awful fight choreography and throwing karate kicks that any beginner level student could do. It always has amazed me how renowned Chuck has been for his "Martial Arts Skills," when in reality it would seem he only has extremely basic Karate type skills. As we saw in "Return of the Dragon," or sometimes titled "Way of the Dragon," a real martial artist like Bruce Lee can easily stomp a mud hole in Chucks overly-hairy chest. The movie is extremely clumsy, and it seems like it was written by a 12 year old boy. Like, for example, at the end when the truckers hear a plea for help from Chuck's girlfriend and decide to dump their payloads and drive their trucks through the town. In the process, smashing police cars, driving through occupied buildings, and even running over a helicopter! All based on a faceless voice they hear over the CB Radio. Uh, yeah, right.

Then there is this weird scene where the Judge comes to the house with his thugs to question and terrorize Chuck's girlfriend and her son. The judge makes the son sit on his lap and appears to be feeling the kid up! It is extremely creepy! I don't know if that was what the movie makers were going for or if George Murdock is a just a sick creep. That scene was hard to watch and disgusting, and I think they kind of crossed a line at some point.

And at the end, when Chuck finally finds his brother locked in a barn, when he is reunited with him, it is more like as if Chuck has found his gay lover, rather than his brother! The acting was a little weird, to say the least!

More than anything, I just find the fight choreography to be annoying. The fights are not exciting, they are just stupid. Chuck does his stupid jump in the air, push you with his foot move over and over. Its just ridiculous.

Thank God the 1970's are over with. Now we can watch Ong Bak, or Tom Yum Goong, or Drunken Master, or Operation Condor and see some real martial arts!

What a total waste. This movie should have been good. It had great actors, great scenics, great cinematography, and no story. Perhaps the story was there, as it was an adaptation of a novel, but the director TOTALLY failed to tell whatever story there was to be had. The director did a great job of finding shots, and making the viewer feel as though he was experiencing a developing mining town in the 1800's, but there was just no cohesion of story telling. The pace of the movie was so slow, it was impossible to follow. One scene sets up, and you think as the viewer that you are going to being to get a feeling of what the movie is about, and then it just trails off and another scene begins. I thought it was especially stupid when the band of guys with guns confronts the band of rail road guys. Everybody pulls out their guns, the rail road guy shoots on of the town guys, and then all the town guys just turn around and walk away like nothing happened. The direction was so soft, so subdued, so poker-faced, that the movie never picks up any momentum and consequently fails in telling any real story. This is a failure of the director. This movie should be avoided. If you are looking for a good western about gold miners confronting greedy town folk, then you should watch PALE RIDER with Clint Eastwood. THE CLAIM was boring and pointless. The only reason I rated it a 2 instead of a 1 is because I thought it was shot well.

One last point I want to make is the Wes Bently looked pretty much exactly the same in this as he did in American BEAUTY, sporting the same stupid snow cap. That kind of snow cap is a modern one, with an ELASTIC HEAD BAND, that did not exist in the 1800's. Again, a total failure on the part of the idiot that directed this disaster.

As the name suggests, when you go to see this you are going to get plenty of cowboy action and plenty of alien action. I mention this because, although the movie is not perfect, it is very enjoyable if you are looking for a good combo of old west meets sci fi action. Its good, its fast paced, its exciting, its entertaining, but it does get a bit silly at times. By all means, don't let that stop you from going and enjoying the spectacle that Favreau has created.

I enjoyed the first part of the movie better than the rest. The old west portion of the movie was done very well. Craig plays a great cowboy character, almost as iconic as Josey Wales himself. All the cowboy stuff is spot on, complete with good gun slinger action and a cool saloon fight. Craig's tight-lipped cowboy draws you in and makes you want to be him.

When the aliens come along, the movie gets a bit silly. But I didn't mind so much. I love action packed westerns and I love sci fi movies, and this one brings the two together pretty well. Still, though, I felt like the aliens were a bit weak. I guess maybe they lacked development. They were not well explained or well motivated, and it was a bit silly that they could be so easily defeated by men on horse back. If you think about it, could a band of cowboys on horseback stand a chance against the modern American military, complete with jets and stealth bombers and such? No, of course not. But then, that is why you shouldn't think about that.

No, don't think about that. Don't question it. The fact is, the special effects are really cool, the action is fast paced, the characters are cool, and the movie is a lot of fun and I am glad that I watched it. And I think you will be glad, too.

This movie was actually worse than I thought it would be. Getting directly to the point, this movie was slow, boring, poorly acted, poorly directed, and went on for almost 2 hours! I could not wait to get out of the theater after enduring the 1 hour and 45 minutes of garbage on screen. I will now give you my SPOILER ALERT, however, you probably should thank me for saving you from having to watch this piece of crap in the first place. SPOILER ALERT!!!!

I am shocked that this movie made it to the big screen. Seemed to be more along the lines of what you might see on the SyFy channel. The script was awful and the directing was amateurish as best.

Some major problems I had with this snoozer:

When Dylan Dog gets punched by the monsters and goes flying a hundred feet through the air: completely stupid and unrealistic. If a human took that kind of abuse, his head would explode like a water balloon. But the man of card-board (rather than steel) himself Brandon Routh jumps up like as if he just fell off his tricycle, hardly the worse for ware.

The zombies were totally stupid. What's the big deal with being a zombie? Apparently they are no different than any other living person except....THEIR EYES TURN GREY! EVENTUALLY! OH NO! Better head off to the zombie support group. Completely stupid.

Lack of motivation of characters. This really bugged me. This was an obvious oversight on the director's part. A good example of this is the scene when Dylan Dog and his idiot zombie side kick are trapped in the crypt that Tay Diggs puts them in. They can't get out, all hope is lost, right? Suddenly Dylan remembers, "Little known fact, Zombies are excellent diggers." But his zombie buddy refuses. Saying, "No. No. I'm not going to do it. No! NO!" Over and over again. Uh....umm....why? I mean, WHY NOT? Why NOT start digging? Is this the director's idea of interjecting DRAMA into this crap fest? Oh, how cute. Dylan and his buddy are arguing over digging themselves out. Why argue over that? Why not start digging? That scene in particular was incredibly stupid and unmotivated and the rest of the movie followed suit.

This was a terrible movie. Don't waste your money, soon enough it will be playing over and over again on the SyFy channel. I am sorry I saw this movie.

My friend DJ (Donnyzona) sent this movie to me in the mail. Out of the blue, with no reason, no explanation, he sent it to me and wanted me to watch it. So I did. I give this movie 4 severed thumbs out of 10. In other words, I liked it, but I did not love it. It was better than your average low budget horror movie, mainly because it did not take itself too seriously. It is interesting because it shifts gears in the middle. SPOILER ALERT! It starts as a Guy Ritchie Wanna-Be Crime Thriller, centering on a group of bumbling criminals who have kidnapped an Amazon girl. Then, in the middle, the group of kidnappers find themselves being hunted by a Texas Chainsaw Style deformed maniac wielding a machete and other rusty farm tool weapons. The movie has a bit of humor, although not too much. But it is lacking in a few departments.

First, there is hardly any explanation of anything. Why did they kidnap the girl? Who is she? How do they know her? Is she actually from the Amazonian jungle or is she just super tall? Who is the machete wielding farmer/maniac? Why do the village people know about him but not really say anything? I mean the questions go on and on. Long on questions, short on explanations, but there is gore for the gore-hounds.

Now, the gore: OK, I am always up for a good gore fest. But, my problem here is that the gore was not original. There are basically two big moments of gore showcased in the movie. The first is when the hot Amazon chick gets her head chopped in half. Cool, yes, but it was done much better in George Romero's DAY OF THE DEAD. That was really the gold standard of this gore gag. Then we saw it again in WRONG TURN when the hot chick gets her head chopped in half and her body falls out of the tree. So when Hotty McBigBoobs takes her turn at the head chop gag, we are not seeing anything new.

Then the other big moment is when Fatty McRetard gets cut open and has his head and attached spine ripped out of his body. Sounds pretty gross, yes. But it was too reminiscent of PREDATOR. The Farmer even does the same triumphant yell and Olympic Style Pose that the Predator did. Not original. Also, not really motivated. Again, there are a lot of unanswered questions in this movie. Why is this Farmer dude on a murder rampage and why is he collecting body parts in the most gruesome ways imaginable?

Not bad. If a friend of yours sends you this movie in the mail for no earthly reason, then go ahead and watch it. Also, go all the way to the end of the credits to see the final DISTURBING ENDING???? QUESTION MARK??? Will there be a THE COTTAGE TWO??? SEQUEL??? MORE UNANSWERED QUESTIONS!?!?!

I am ashamed to even be writing a review of this "movie" because it means I admit that I watched it. I didn't actually watch it, though, I mostly just fast-forwarded through it. And the only reason I came in to contact with this piece of crap is because my friend DJ (Donnyzona) sent the DVD to me as a joke and insisted I watch it.

This is not a "movie." It is just some home video of a guy walking around in a corn field. The guy in the field is the same moron who actually made this garbage, Bill Cowell. Looks like somebody gave Bill an old fashioned standard definition cam corder from the late 1980's and he decided he would shoot a bunch of video and call it a movie.

Bill Cowell is an idiot. He didn't even bother to get a high def camera. I mean, Best Buy doesn't even SELL standard definition cameras anymore! He has NO sense of film making or story telling. He does not have a light kit, much less a reflector. And it appears to me that he used an old fashioned Video Toaster to "edit" this piece of crap together. I say that because he repeatedly uses the old picture-in-picture function that the Toaster had. This only adds to the amateurish nature of this home video.

Now let me tell you in case you are wondering, the majority of this video is just Bill Cowell walking around in a corn field yelling, "Hey where are you? Can you hear me? Answer me please." That is THE MAJORITY of the video and I am NOT KIDDING. The run time on this disaster is over 100 minutes and most of those minutes are as described above. I kept fast forwarding and then playing a little to check, and it just kept going like that. I really couldn't believe it.

The real offender here is Lions Gate. They are the ones who distributed this. Are they really that desperate for material to distribute? If so, I have some old video I shot with my old handy cam of me and my friends walking around Fremont Street here in Las Vegas. They could just pay me whatever they paid Bill Cowell and release my unedited footage as "Dark Harvest 4" or whatever. It would probably be better than this pile of trash.

If you come across any of these DVD's, pick them up and put them in the garbage where they belong. This would be the same as throwing away an old beer can, or that annoying plastic bag that blew in to your yard, or an old cereal box. It is just garbage, that's all. Throw it away, do not watch it. Absolute crap.

This was great. A lot of people have been bashing this movie, but I liked it. The script is sparse and tight. I like the fact that they didn't waste a lot of time with set up or over explanation. The movie starts immediately and doesn't let up until the end. It is action packed, and moves at a steady pace through out the entire film. I think some people felt that some characters were killed off too quickly, but that is all part of the fun. It makes you wonder who might be next and again, doesn't waste any time getting to the action. I wish people were not so hard on sci fi movies when they come out. I love the genre, and I loved the original PREDATOR, so I want to see Hollywood come out with more movies like this one. PREDATORS succeeds were the PREDATOR 2 and the AVP movies failed. PREDATORS feels like a real, true sequel to the original Arnold classic.

Of course, there is the criticism of Adrien Brody being cast in the lead role that I feel I must address. Brody did the best job he possibly could, and actually did much better than I thought he would, (he did the whole BATMAN voice through the movie to butch up a bit). I liked his character a lot. I am not talking about the actor, but the way his character was written. I would like to see more of that character, but in my opinion it would have been great to see a different actor in that role. I truly think Vin Diesel would have been a perfect choice and I think Nimrod missed a great opportunity by not casting him in the role. Nimrod commented that he didn't want a "Arnold Type" like Vin because he would be attacked for doing so. I understand that they wanted to go in a different direction with the casting, so I think a great choice would have been Ryan Reynolds. Ryan has already proved that he can carry the burden of action star, he has a perfect action physique, and he is a great actor with an incredible knack for delivering his lines with just a touch of comedy. He would have been totally perfect for the role and it would have been great to see him taking on a role so dark.

If you haven't seen it, you need to. Give it a chance, and remember this is a sequel to the original. The first movie, PREDATOR, is absolutely a classic and one of my all time favorite action movies. It definitely deserved a good sequel and it is great to see that they finally did the movie justice.

I liked this movie, and I enjoyed it, but at the same time it annoyed me and I found it hard to follow. Ultimately, the movie is a bit confusing and hard to follow. Which is ironic, because throughout the movie they try to make sure the audience is following what is happening by showing countless flashbacks to the previous scenes to remind us of what just happened. It was as if the movie makers were trying to lead the audience by the hand through their convoluted maze of a story line. The flash back technique and complexity of the story increases as the movie progresses. When the movie first started, it was actually much better and the story telling was much stronger. About 15 minutes in, I leaned over to my friend and said, "This movie is pretty kick ass!" But then, gradually, the movie began to drag and became harder to follow. The opening of the movie when we are taken on an adventure that introduces the characters of the A-Team is pretty good. The characters are likable and the action is fast paced and fun. That sets you up to think that the movie is going to continue like that. But around the time that the van gets destroyed, the movie starts taking a turn for the worse.

Here is what I think happened: At its core, "THE A-TEAM" plot is kind of complicated and I imagine that the initial cut of the movie was probably presented to test audiences who, when asked, most likely complained that the movie was hard to follow. So rather than adopting a better, tighter script, the movie makers decided to just re-edit the movie and include frequent flash backs to guide the audience. But this really didn't help that much. Overall, it is hard to follow. Not to mention, the super fast paced editing, cutting from shot-to-shot, and close up shaky camera work did not help matters. In my opinion, a fight scene should be a story in itself, rather than just a bunch of shots of people shooting and running and punching. It is not enough for me to see a character on screen running and shooting his gun and a bunch of stuff exploding. I want to see clearly what is happening. Of course, carefully and artistically planning out a shot is a lot more expensive and time consuming than just jerking the camera around and shooting from every imaginable angle.

The acting was good, and of course it was great to see Rampage as B.A. and very impressive to see him holding his own in the company of such veteran actors. However, Sharlto Copley did not really do justice to Murdoch. Dwight Shultz is a genius, and was extremely likable, funny, and inventive as Murdock in the original series. Sharlto reduced Murdock to a rambling mad man. He spends a lot of his time on screen screaming and/or talking as fast as he can, but not really saying anything substantive or really funny. Truly, quality is superior to quantity. I think they would have been better off with a different actor, or at least to have streamlined Murdock's lines. And I didn't feel that Liam Neeson really portrayed Hannibal as confidently as George Peppard did.

This movie was not as good as I had hoped it would be, but it wont completely disappoint. It is worth a trip to the theater to see it.

This movie should have been called "Clash of the Boring Idiots." I am a huge fan of the original 1981 classic film, and I was excited to see a remake. I thought it looked like it was going to be amazing judging by the trailers that I watched. Wow, was I ever disappointed! This movie was terrible! The trailer was awesome, and it fooled me. I was hearing a lot of bad reviews before I went to see the movie, and I did not believe any of them. Again, the trailer looked so cool, I figured that reports of the actual film had to be erroneous. But the film just sucked.

The special effects were great, but the story was just terrible! You would think the original story was so great, it would be hard to mess it up! But they did. There was no character development, and I found myself not caring at all about any of the characters. Characters seemed to just appear for no reason with no back story, and then disappear as quickly and easily as they had arrived with no wrap up or resolution. The story telling really felt rushed and underdeveloped. It was very boring.

And officially, I am DONE with 3-D. I was not impressed. In fact, I was annoyed more than anything and I finally took my 3-D glasses off and tried to watch the movie in 2-D.

The Boo Bo cameo fell absolutely flat. It did not make me laugh. I thought it was just pathetic.

My recommendation: Go re-watch the original. Andromeda was way hotter, anyway (she is SUPER fine in the 1981 original, not to take away anything from Alexa Davalos). And even despite the old stop-motion special effects, aside from being a bit old fashioned, I think it holds up great and is a lot of fun to watch. Don't bother with this remake, it is a stinker.

This movie won the Academy Award for "Best Picture of the Year?" Seriously? Are you kidding me? I think that tells a lot about the Academy Awards and how completely stupid, pointless, useless, and misleading they are.

Watching this movie was like watching paint dry, but thinking that at any moment the paint could explode. But then, when it does explode, you don't really care.

I have noticed that "action" movies that are directed by women are usually not great. When I started out watching this movie, I had high hopes for it because I had heard good things about it, and of course it won an Academy Award (for whatever that is worth). And I thought it would be interesting to finally see a good action movie directed by a woman (Kathryn Bigalow). But instead it was a total let down. Maybe Kathryn Bigalow should get a job making movies for the Lifetime Network, and stay the hell out of the action genre because "HURT LOCKER" sucked.

Watching "The Hurt Locker" made me feel like I was INSIDE a Hurt Locker! And all I wanted to do was get out of that locker and go do something else. Every time the movie built up any suspense or tension, Bigalow manages to slow down the pace and kill the scene. Also, there a lot of times when you think the movie is going to take a new direction, and really get into a decent subplot, but then it just simply goes NOWHERE.

Don't believe the hype on this movie. Stay out of the Hurt Locker, save yourself two hours of life. Somebody should put an explosive on this movie and blow it up. Funny, a movie about a bomb squad that is, itself, a total bomb. How ironic.

This is definitely my new favorite show. Absolutely genius, I would say this is the best show on TV right now. Of course, the content is right up my alley. I love Venture Bros. and other quirky Adult Swim shows, and of course various other animated shows with an adult target audience, such as Family Guy, South Park, Futurama, and the like. Of course, ARCHER is not on Adult Swim, but obviously it would fit right in. Fow now it is on TNT, which is great. I like the idea that a network other than FOX is getting into the this genre. Maybe we will see more shows like this pop up in the ratings battle.

H. John Benjamin is brilliant, needless to say. I laugh my self silly every time I watch this show, and it is hard for me to say which episode is my favorite. I think, right now, I like SKYTANIC the most, although DIVERSITY HIRE was absolutely hysterical. I have to say SKYTANIC stands out particularly because of the end sequence when Archer and Lana are trying to disarm the bomb, and they have that genius dialog with the technical support team. I would almost describe it as being inspired by the old Abbot and Costello routine "Who's on First?" For those of you who have seen the episode, I am sure you know what I am talking about it. For those of you who haven't seen this particular episode, I say, check it out, set your DVR, and you will see what I mean and probably pee your pants. For those of you that have not seen this show at all, I say: What are you? Some kind of idiot? Do you live under a rock? Watch the show already! Its super funny.

SPOILER ALERT! I am going to talk a little about the plot, so I am warning you that I might give something away in my review. Great movie, a lot of fun to watch, good action, good special effects. HOWEVER! Why did the aliens trade all their super cool, super powerful weapons for cat food? RIDICULOUS! The story shows the prawns being very quick to attack or harm humans. They are quick to be violent, and they clearly don't like being treated so badly. They are characterized by being involved in all kinds of sleazy behavior and crime, so why in the world would they willingly disarm themselves? They had to wait all that time until Wikus comes along and finally starts using their weapons against the humans to realize that they should be using the weapons? All that time they had been willingly disarming themselves, trading their weapons over for CAT FOOD? SERIOUSLY? That just did not make any sense to me at all. The movie is a lot of fun, lots of action, lots of gore, great special effects, good tension, good characters...but the whole time I was watching the movie I was asking myself, "Why did the aliens trade their weapons for cat food!" That made no sense. So I felt that was a fatal flaw in the plot. I just couldn't get past such an obvious flaw in story logic. I am surprised that the movie makers didn't ask themselves that while making the film.

Why make a movie about super heroes that are retired? This movie completely sucked. It was so totally boring. I was shocked, I was mad, and I had to fight to stay awake! There was actually a guy in the theater that fell asleep and SNORED through the entire movie. It was really funny, people kept trying to wake him up and tell him he was snoring. He would awake, apologize, and then 5 minutes later he was snoring again! And I was thinking, "Who can blame him!" His time was better spent asleep because I am sure his dreams were more entertaining than this stupid movie! The movie is THREE HOURS long and is made up mostly of dialog. It is also FILLED with flashbacks that we see over, and over, AND OVER again. The movie would have been HALF as long if they would have only shown each scene ONE time.

I am a huge fan of super hero movies, I loved the Christian Bale BATMAN movies, I loved IRON MAN, I loved BLADE, but this movie just bored the crap out of me. DON'T BELIEVE THE HYPE! Just skip it, save yourself three hours. This movie was horrible.