centralbeerangi-307-394889

There are nearly 100 reviews on IMDb for this title so why one more? I want to decry the trend of remaking one story over and over.

Riddick is a rehash of the tension and plot elements of Pitch Black. In fact, Riddick expands what was basically a 5 minute sequence at the start of Chronicles--namely Riddick stranded on a (frozen) planet and escaping using the bounty hunter's ship into a two hour bloated yawner. Nuff said.

Riddick does not advance the plot/saga in any substantial way. The first third of the movie with its Robinson Crusoe riffs was easily the best part of the two hour runtime. But the movie is utterly ruined with the arrival of the bounty hunters. After nearly 80 minutes of running around there is no closure at all. The one character who is villainous was dispatched spectacularly. But that sequence was included in the very first trailer for the film!!! When the money shot is in the trailer and in the film it occurs with 20 minutes left, there is no place for the movie to go but down and fast.

The creatures are nasty for sure ... are they in the caverns below the surface or are they in a dehydrated state? Should we care? They show up in vast numbers and then not at all and then again in an inconsistent manner (Pitch Black did not suffer from these sort of inconsistencies). They are unable to eliminate one character who makes it back unaided to ensure that the Riddick saga continues! This is a huge plot hole (maybe they will make a movie out of that...)

An unfortunate attempt to introduce element of sexual tension in the film fails utterly. Riddick's declaration of lust for the one surviving female character is spectacularly at odds with the internal dynamic of the story and of Riddick's own character development to this point in the saga. If you want argue that this is simply lust at first sight, how can it NOT be anything less than objectification of a beautiful woman?

My thinking is that the film has undergone significant trimming and reorientation during the editing process. There is probably more story and additional advancement of the plot involving the necros left on the cutting room floor. There must have also been more scenes between Riddick and Dahl to justify Riddick's subsequent declaration of his intentions for her.

Its number one at the box-office. The bad news is that for people like me who demand story/tension/internal logic and some originality, this bodes ill since the movie's success vindicates what I detest in this film. The good news is it portends installments 4 and 5. Apparently the creators have already plotted out the trajectory of the next films in the saga. Hopefully no rip-offs are in the offing....

You know the plot; you also know who is in this movie so lets get to it. Gore Verbinski has delivered a film that moves leisurely along peppered with rousing action sequences, comedy, villainy and pathos. It is solid entertainment. I would place this movie alongside Waterworld, The Last Action Hero, and John Carter as unfairly panned films which deserves to succeed in the cinema halls.

It is too bad that there appears to be a hate on for this movie simply because it seems that a lot of money was spent in its making. But look at it this way, when you hire real stunt persons, construct and destroy real trains and stage many stunts for real, it is not going to be cheap. I would rather support this type of movie-making any day instead of the tired CGI based effects laden yawners. Every penny of the budget is on screen in a beautiful shot and staged movie. I found it to be an enjoyable 159 minutes of entertainment.

Welcome to the one of the most unpleasant motion picture viewing experiences you are going to have this year or any year for that matter. This movie celebrates the principle that by simply writing checks, you can avoid accountability and responsibility for causing a massive freeway pile up of cars and trucks that probably resulted in fatalities or in numerous life threatening injuries of many innocent people.

The movie tries to build laughs by depicting two scenes of astonishing cruelty to animals involving a decapitation and suffocation by pillow; there is also a reference to the fate of two other animals that takes place off screen which does not make the knowledge any less unpleasant. A scene with an invalid elderly person in the span of a few brief seconds amply illustrates the selfishness and self absorbed nature of most of the characters populating this movie.

There is no comedy or humor in this movie or any laughs. There is a total of 3 minutes of glorious film in the 100 minute run time. This is 90 seconds of Heather Graham's luminous presence and artful grace and a 90 second sequence inserted into the end credits scrawl. The latter in a bitter twist of irony is a laugh out loud funny sequence that belatedly hints at what this movie could have been.

My negative opinion of this movie is not about my lacking a sense of humor or tolerance for outrageousness or edginess in a film. It is simply about wanting to see a decent comedy made by intelligent filmmakers. Instead, this movie is what you will find in abundance floating in the sewers of Bangkok where the movie begins and should have been left to rot.

Save your money and do not allow the howls of derision from genuine comedy lovers to be drowned out by the laughter of the filmmakers and actors with lucrative back end deals tied to the box-office gross as they strut their way to their banks to cash their checks. My 15 bucks is a goner, yours does not have to.

When a movie is held back from release by a studio, it usually means the film is in trouble. That is certainly the case with GI:JOE Retaliation. The release of this movie was postponed for nearly 8 months and the wait has done little to improve its quality as far as I am concerned.

The plot concerns the Cobra's plan for world domination and the Joes' efforts to stop him. Although this is a serviceable premise for an action movie, this effort is second rate. A lot of people have a hate on for the first movie. But at least that film had continuity of plot and that alone makes that one a superior example of filmmaking for me.

The movie appears to have been edited down to the bone and every bit of exposition has been trimmed in the name of pace. Unfortunately this means that characters show up without explanation and change allegiance with little motivation. One villain is left to perish by the bad guys with no explanation. A key character does not make an appearance until the 30% mark--and there is no explanation as to what that person was or is doing. Another major character exits inside of 20 minutes!

The 3D is a waste: the director has filmed the story in shaky cam style which does not mix well with 3D. The fights are a joke: Check out the fights in the TV series Banshee for bone crunching brutal action. A lot of innocent people die in this film in the service of the plot and somehow it all felt hollow and cheap. The real tragedy is that the story leaves open the possibility of another sequel. Now that is something that would warrant a retaliation.

This installment of the Die Hard series sees John McClane travel to Russia to help his son who has run into trouble with the Russian authorities. I was disappointed with the movie overall--the story lacked tension and real mystery and despite a couple of plot twists it is not as compelling as any of the previous entries in the franchise. I would rank the plot at the same level as the previous movie directed by Len Wiseman. Even at 98 minutes the pacing was sluggish especially in the early going. There are several action set pieces in this film that feature lots of explosions and gunfire but I found them repetitive and boring. In fact in two key action sequences a helicopter is featured and both are similarly structured for the most part while concluding slightly differently. The obligatory automobile chase scene is filmed with shaky cam with so many cuts that last micro-seconds that its dizzying. This is unfortunate because the stunt crew do a fantastic job of destroying cars and trucks and there are genuine thrills to be had if only the editor had held shots longer. The chemistry between Willis and Jai Courtney was not there for me; you will know what I mean when you compare the brief scenes between Willis and Mary Elizabeth Winstead, who scintillates in the 2 minutes she is on screen, to the rest of the film. So in the previous three months that has seen releases from Cruise, Stallone and Schwarzenegger, we now have to add an entry from Willis and to my mind here is how I would rank the films: 1. Reacher 2. The Last Stand 3. Tie Bullet to the Head and A Good Day to Die Hard

A final post script: At the screening I attended, the movie was projected digitally at an aspect ratio of 2.35:1 and ALL of the subtitles were completely cut off. According to IMDb, this movie is supposed to be in 1.85:1 ratio. A 1.85:1 ratio film with subtitles when cropped to 2.35:1 would result in the the subtitles being cut off. I don't know if this was a mistake of the projectionist, who by the way tried in vain to fix the problem, or if Fox Studios decided to release the film in 2.35:1 by cropping the original 1.85:1 version. All of the dialog spoken by Russian characters with each other is in Russian and subtitled so if you can't see the subtitles you are likely missing expository dialog. My rating would be unchanged regardless.

Geek Update: The correct aspect ratio for this film is indeed 1.85:1. I went back to the multiplex and confirmed this recently when I watched a few minutes of the film again. This is the first Die Hard film that has not been shot in widescreen. It was shot on film using spherical lenses in the super-35mm format. The director apparently framed the shots for the 1.85:1 ratio (a squarer image than the 2.35:1 ratio) and extracted the image from the exposed super-35mm negative. My experience watching the film in two different aspect ratios illustrates another dissatisfying point of this movie. John Moore's framing has so much "safe-action" in the center of the screen image that even when cropped to 2.35:1, other than the loss of the subtitles there was not one single indication of the director's true intended aspect ratio! By cramming all the relevant detail into the middle of the frame, this means that there is so much irrelevant visual information in the top and the bottom of the 1.85:1 image that after these portions are cropped out there is no real loss of compositional clarity. Why would/should someone pay hard earned cash to see this on the big screen? Save your money, wait for it on cable.

Here is a unabashedly geeky review of the movie that I enjoyed tremendously.

This film--and I mean film--is lean and brutal. It has been criticized for being predictable and fans of the Reacher novels have decried the choice of Cruise to play this character on screen. The main complaint about Cruise is that he does not fit the description of Reacher in the novels. I believe that both criticisms are unwarranted--you may of course disagree.

First, the story. As far as the story is concerned, this not a mystery which is solved in the final reel. It was not supposed to be one either and so I am not sure about why some people are unhappy about the plot. All the cards are placed on the table about 70 percent of the way in and I had no issues with that at all.

Director/screenwriter McQuarrie has done an excellent job of structuring the narrative and filming Cruise in such a manner that I loved the "predictability" because the film does a great job of setting up the bad guys that you are just itching for their comeuppance at the hands of Reacher--and the film delivers this in full satisfying measure! This action film does not wimp out in the climax and the on screen events are completely consistent with the remainder of the story.

As for Cruise, well he has toned up and looks mean and moves very fluidly and I had no problem accepting this guy was a brute force with tremendous intelligence --not to be trifled with. The genius of the film is that the director and the ace cinematographer Caleb Deschanel (the father of Bones' Emily) have composed every shot featuring Cruise to maximize his on screen presence: they shoot him ground up; they swoop down from the top; the camera swirls around him and even in medium shots they shoot Cruise to fill the wide screen. This is so well done, I was not the least bit concerned that Cruise, physically, is not the man described in Lee Child's novels.

As for the movie itself, there is not a single jitter shaky cam shot to be seen (at least that registered to my mind). Wow! How refreshing. To add to this bounty, here is a rare (for today when everything is digital) example of filming on film using an anamorphic lens (i.e. CinemaScope). To me it was obvious that a great amount of thought had gone into framing of the compositions. Full use is made of the widescreen aspect ratio. And unlike what happens in numerous "Super 35" films, this director does not crop off heads at the forehead in close ups!

The result? A gorgeously "filmed in Panavision" action thriller. Mr. Deschanel's (he has filmed the Patriot and the Natural and other good looking films) lensing here is a sight to behold: warm colors, sharp focus, and a steady image where you can see and relish the film makers taking you for a ride. Kevin Stitt's editing is also noteworthy (he did Mel Gibson's Payback an underrated action movie leaving aside Mr. Gibson's personal issues). The action scenes are cut to thrill and not disorienting in the least. The car chase is one of the best edited sequences I have seen in recent years. I say this not because the stunts are eye-popping but because you know exactly what the hunter and the hunted are doing or are trying to do at each moment of the chase.

So what we have here is a lean to the bone (crunching) tale, with brutal bad guys who are over matched by a relentless foe who is able to match their brutality measure for measure but one whose moral compass is unwaveringly pointed in the direction of justice, fairness and right. So its a fantasy, no question, but a highly satisfying tale: Well told, well filmed; well acted. I got my money's worth on this one.

This show is ineptly plotted and written as to defy belief. Consider the just aired Season 4 premiere. It is as awfully written and executed as the "cliff hanger" season 3 ending episode. Introducing James Bond type elements into the episode is so preposterous and utterly useless in generating any tension whatsoever. The writing--you got to hear the exchange between McGarrett and his Mom to understand the writers have no interest in doing anything interesting creatively. McGarrett barely lets his Mom explain her actions interjecting with words that are supposed to evoke sympathy and the hurt he has experienced from being apparently abandoned--This from a navy Seal whose training and experience has supposedly made him aware that people have to make very difficult and painful choices in the service of their country and their families. Jeez this series more than any other on television makes its characters behave in illogical and offensive ways. The dialogue where McGarrett is defending the actions of his team to a justifiably indignant Governor is also illustrative of the fact the team has no idea of social responsibility and accountability. To compound this further the team triggers a gun battle in the middle of a busy intersection trying to hot-dog the situation and which concludes with a vigilante style execution. Finally, the leader of the team i.e. Steve appears flummoxed that an earlier event to which he arrived just late is not what it appears--although we the viewers know. Any clear thinking detective would not have allowed the investigation to run away from him. Sure his mother is involved but that is where training is supposed to take over--but not in this series. Anything for yet another meaningless cliff hanger. By this time I stopped caring. I know this is an analysis of just one episode, but in my view this episode is typical for the show. I am tired of shows that seemingly assume that its audience do not care and that we will willingly accept gunfights and deaths of innocents that occur because the good guys need to catch the bad guys. Calling this a procedural is laughable when no one follows procedure. Compare this series to some on the main networks like Bones or Castle, or Bluebloods, or Person of Interest all shows with strong core structures and well played and written characters, you will understand what I mean. Save your precious time and deep six this one.