jayg_58

Not sure why they require 600 words now. Maybe just to reduce the quantity of people reviewing - or the quality of people reviewing. Anyway! This movie is like a college project. I read somewhere that they had a budget of three million dollars, mostly spent on catering I would guess. Not one recognizable face. The props were found at the local hardware store. The scientific principles - aren't. But like many "Sci-Fi" efforts, you have to wonder how, in the movie, they selected the participants for such a seemingly demanding mission. How emotionally unstable are you? 'Look, a squirrel! Let's kill it!' "Yes, you'll do." Rubber monsters, no CGI, sub in a bathtub. Thank goodness for Fast Forward. I made it through the movie in about a half hour. I heartily recommend you spend far less.

Had high hopes for an evening's entertainment. But NO! First thing I noticed was the across the board bad acting. Ed Skrein was over the top, but that actually fit in. Everyone else was just bad. The plot?? Taken from a half dozen other movies and patched together - poorly. This was like a scrapbook of other film plots, badly written, badly directed, badly edited and badly acted. Run away! Nothing made sense. There's just so many ways I can write BAD to fill up the required word count. Ok, the most embarrassing acting was our protagonist heroine. There was a bit of sweaty six pack fluff, serving only that purpose, and one cool griffon creature. Someone at Netflix needs to be moved to a basement room with his stapler.

Billed as comedy / horror - BUT: it was hard to sit through. So many opportunities for humor - missed. Acting was decent throughout; plot was fine; effects were limited, and no one tried to explain time travel (thankfully). There were just so many times, a tongue in cheek, or a more slapstick move would have justified the "comedy" part of horror. Yup, enough suspense, slashing and blood as you didn't look too closely. I really missed the comedy which should have been there. Our heroine had many straight lines that didn't quite hit, or just fell flat, or just weren't well written. Boo on the writers. Was this before the strike? Oh well, decent probably for the teen crowd, although our "teenagers" all appeared to be 25+.

Firstly, they should reduce the 600 to, at most, 500. Even that's too many. Only big budget, star quality movies can sustain 600 words. Most can be covered in 2-300 hundred. Like this one. Very very budget, and they obviously couldn't afford an on-set expert in all things military. A Colonel who gives missions from a basement - with a beard - on a supposed base - with camo insignia which appear to be a Spec 4? A rubber masked monster which is never explained, and an ending which just looks like 'well that's the budget, stop shooting'. However! The action and acting of the two main characters was good enough to keep me watching until the ridiculous end. Couple beers and it's watchable.

Angelina was more or less perfect for the role, considering this is based on a cartoon / comic book with a heroin in spandex with extra large, pointy breasts. She added just the right blend of sarcastic humor and over the top not quite realism. No idea whose idea this film was. She wasn't funny, or charismatic, no spandex, no breasts and pretty much one expression: sour. Yup, it was an action film, but Tomb Raider - NAH! How could Angelina pull off feminism and sex so well, and this statue can pull off nothing but 'hey, I spend 6 hours a day in the gym'. And not half as sexy as any Olympic gymnast. Fun watch if you're reeaalllly bored.

The casting was fine, except the "mother" robot with a lisp. Really? Who created that robot? Nope, the whole plot was totally unbelievable; however, the movie, as a whole, was entertaining. Just had to keep telling myself "suspend" "suspend" "suspend". Science fiction gets better the closer to a reality we can relate to, or at least perceive. Not this one, folks. Any movie that inundates us with hundreds of robots (I, Robot), but no logistical way for them to exist, is just out there for entertainment's sake. So, yup, it does that, albeit full of slow narrative bits that try to cover the implausibilities. Done! Watch it.

This is a movie written from a dime novel of the thirties. The characters are almost a parody of themselves. Philip Marlowe is best played by Humphrey Bogart or actors of his ilk. Actors that can play over the top and make it seem real. Liam Neeson is not even close. He is so badly miscast. Jessica Lange is phoning it in and doesn't have much of a part. The police characters are totally undeveloped, and the only one who handles her part well is Diane Kruger. Even she is a bit thin. The result is a movie that looks like a parody of a parody. I laughed in a lot of inappropriate places just because the acting was so over-the-top bad, but I couldn't turn it off because my wife was doing a running commentary - and interpretation of every scene. Save yourself the pain.

The Rock is awoken from a few thousand year sleep to rescue a city he may (or may not) have rescued long ago. Guess they couldn't get any regular super-heroes on board, so they created a few blah new ones I couldn't care less about.... then don't develop their characters at all. Lots of well done CGI; too much slo-mo; too much unnecessary city destruction; and The Rock does not have enough screen time. Not that he's a great actor - he has a schtick - but he's the one I tuned in to see. Pierce Brosnan is TOO old to be playing super heroes, but I guess his name still sells. Kinda like Liam Neeson and Bruce Willis; retire already!! Don't you have enough money? Anyway, the movie was fun, but too long. Guess they feel you get your moneys worth if it's over 2 hours. I recommend it.

Anyone who tries to assign artistic value to this is totally missing the point. The lead actress is wooden and obviously untrained - and nearly perfect in the role. This is just pure camp. It doesn't measure up on any other level, but for the midnight horror buffs, I've had it in my collection for a long time now. Wonder why we've never seen our protagonist again? She really can't act, but in this, it works.

Jenny and George. Or are they? The bad guys aren't really bad; they're just people who violate Jenny's personal code of conduct. Her reaction to them is over the top. There is nothing in this film that should be taken seriously or rated against large budge horror. It's just fun.

Two girls and a guy out on a 'disabled' sailing yacht. Someone is mentally unstable, but who? Ok, they had a budget and it would never win any awards, but not everyone can live in a Marvel universe. I've seen so many 4 rated movies, this one should be a 6, but it falls just a hair short. I think the protagonists do an acceptable job with their characters (and yes, the guy looks a lot like his sister). I stuck with it because I did get vested enough to want to know who the sociopath was. Colorful filming, pretty people, a little nudity, sadly no sharks, but a little blood, and a Disney ending (too bad). Quite watchable.

Kudos for not showing us Sears catalog cowboys. These guys were semi-authentic, bad teeth, dirty shirts. Their guns were a little too clean. The Indian girl may have been Indian, but she didn't really look it. She did look pretty raggedy, albeit her clothes were usually cleaner than she was and definitely department store front window stuff. OK, so much for appearances, the acting wasn't great. Too over the top. Everyone was trying too hard. The story was decent - cowboys out to steal gold from some prospectors run into the ghost of a cursed warrior. I don't think the writer/director really knew how to handle that, but it worked alright. You could tell this had a very constrained budget, but it kept me off the FF key for the most part. I'd recommend it for a cowboy, ghost spirit movie.

This is one of those movies in which the cast has more fun than the audience. Written and directed by a woman, the acting was decent, but no grasp on reality. When a real situation would arise, it was immediately tossed out, and the storybook continued. Watched it on a laptop during a local power black-out. Other than the forehead slapping, it entertained.

Not sure why Antonio allowed his name in this. Probably the Bruce Willis thing. Call it in for a check. Who knows, I didn't make it that far. Jaime King never could act. She's aging hard and still can't act. When I saw it take on the believability of a Schwarzenegger movie, I quit. 10 guys with machine guns open up on her - miss - and she takes them out with pistols. Yup, click. Gave it a 2 because it wasn't one of those high school extra credit projects.

This was just painful to sit through. Way too long, and mostly about Wanda (the red witch). The special effects were incredible... and never-ending. The story was obscure. Took me 3 tries to finish it. If you're a fan of the "universe" and unending light shows, go for it, but if you have any finesse in your movie tastes, spare yourself!

Yes, they were still very annoying, but the scope and complexity of the story took it to a plane well above the average B&B. I couldn't watch the shows, but I have seen the other movie and this one is far better.

Creds for being written, directed, and acted by the residents of a small Inuit village. However, that doesn't mean it was up to any standard. The plot was a rehash, but creative; the actors - weren't, and it showed; the effects were pretty much rubber masks. I sat through the whole thing because it tried, and deserved my effort. Unless you are directly related to some part of this production, I'd have to say "pass" rather than watch it and write a bad review. If you were part of the effort, you'll enjoy seeing your friends and neighbors up on the screen.

Most of the reviews I read were unnecessarily lengthy. I don't know why anyone would try to do an indepth artistic review of a small cutesy action flick. This looks like they walked into the cafeteria on a movie lot and said "hey, we've got Brucie and Forest onboard, anyone else need a quick paycheck? There are a lot of long conversations totally unrelated to the plot or lack thereof; you recognize most of the faces; the action scenes are well done; the directing choices are pretty lame in my opinion (having watched a LOT of films like this). People will lose interest when you kill off the some of the main protagonists in the first 10 minutes... and then go back and try and develop their character. There is nothing deep or artistic, and yes, they swiped a bit of Tarantino - so what? They weren't competing with him. I was just amused by some of the pretentious reviewers, most of whom were spelling challenged, who were judging this as a top shelf film when it's just a beer effort. And fun!! Three pretty girls for the guys, and Bruce and Forest for the girls. Bloody good entertainment.

Here we have an action movie with no script, no plot, and bad directing - BUT - decent actors and good choreography. FF - a lot. The unknowns all seem like they were at the top of their high school or college acting classes, but not good enough for Hollywood. If you keep your finger on the FF button and avoid the lengthy, unnecessary dialogue, the fight scenes are entertaining if unrealistic. I mean - bad guy get hit 3X in the face with the butt on a rifle and gets up and keeps fighting. Shades of Chinese Boxing. If you're bored and like new faces hitting each other...

I admit it's not fair giving a 4 star review after watching 10 minutes, but that's all I could stomach. I wanted to give it 3. Tom Wopat looks like an over-the-hill alcoholic trying to cash in with whomever remembers Dukes of Hazzard, a masterpiece of bad acting and trite action. I was still hanging on until the female lead came on... reading from a bad script and implausible plotline. Oh well, if you're a Duke's fan, it might be fun.

I watched it expecting a one pony slapstick comedy. Nope. Took me three sittings to get through it, but it just kept getting better and better. The only two dimensional character was the cheating husband. Not well developed, but didn't really have to be. Just someone to hate. The two stars were excellent! I doubt the Mexican lead will be doing a lot more leading man films, but in this one he was just perfect. They threw in a little of everything to hook you, maybe not all necessary, but didn't detract much. I highly recommend it for a non-action, SciFi type flick.

Big names - all miscast. Never heard so many really poor attempts at Nordic accents. We've got Brits, Australian, and Americans, all slipping in an out of poor accents. They all look the part, but none even close to fit the characters they're 'trying' to portray. Just yelling does not make it authentic or believable. And look - sometimes they're too clean, sometimes really dirty. Did not see the portable showers. The story was straightforward; nothing really mystical or mysterious. Very occasional CGI references to Valhalla. I was expecting something BIG, something more at least. For the length, if they had cut out half the various premises, it might have succeeded for me, but there's no way to really explain how unauthentic and misdirected it was. You'll just have to watch it, hopefully not as painfully as I did. And since when did Nicole and Anya have such bad lisps?

The plot has been done many times. AI gaming robot with a secret military subroutine. Hmm? I could start a list. You could do a lot with that with CGI and real actors. Here, there's no CGI (yet), so we have toys and stop motion and bad acting, and unfinished characters, and a primitive Robby the Robot concept from the 50s. The whole movie looks 1980s, not 1995. It almost looks like a high school comedy, but turned dark. I couldn't empathize with any of the characters, and kinda wished all of them had been done in. It's also in 4:3 format. I had my fingers on the FF.

No redeeming social value - check. Gratuitous nudity - check. Way too much blood - check. Acting - passable. Comedy is hard, and these guys try and mostly succeed. Definitely worth a brain off, beer in hand watch. When I saw the IMDB score it was 5.3. Way too low. If you're a reviewer that likes overly long French dramas, you'll hate it.

Easily a half hour too long, but otherwise, very well done. It could have done with a lot of tightening up: extraneous scenes; too much character building, but I think that's the French, though. They love their personal drama to the point of distraction for us Amurcans. The story parallels the MCAS conspiracy, but changes it just enough to avoid the lawsuit. I recently watched the Boeing, McDonnell Douglas documentary, and boy, was that an eye-opener. Brings a whole new meaning to corporate greed (BP excepted). This story threw in the personal life of the Black Box listener who worked for BEA, the French version of the FAA. It shifted the evil empire from a direct shot at the manufacturer to a sub-contractor., and added some red herrings and violence to wake up the audience who might otherwise have fallen asleep. Overall, if you can deal with subtitles, I highly recommend it, and I also recommend you watch the Boeing documentary first for a lot of perspective.

As for the rest of the movie... no script, card reading acting, stiff. The plot is the usual - earth is dying from pollution and disease, a compatible planet is found, and off go our protagonists with an alien artifact found deep in the earth to terraform the new planet. Not a bad plot, but OMG, the acting: none; the script: none. So wooden. It's hard to believe they couldn't find real actors, or maybe just didn't want to pay them. It's painful to watch. I kept my fingers on the FF button through the whole movie. I've seen some great Russian SciFi movies, in fact they're very good at it, but this is just painful. There's a monster, of course, ripped straight off Alien, but only a couple glimpses of it. Not kidding, you really don't want to waste the time.