jeffrey-utley
Joined Oct 2012
Welcome to the new profile
We're still working on updating some profile features. To see the badges, ratings breakdowns, and polls for this profile, please go to the previous version.
Ratings648
jeffrey-utley's rating
Reviews30
jeffrey-utley's rating
This is the third installment of the unofficial trilogy starting with 'Shawn of the Dead', then 'Hot Fuzz', then 'The World's End'. I haven't seen 'Shawn of the Dead' or 'Hot Fuzz', so I went into this film with fresh eyes, and out of it wanting to see 'Shawn of the Dead' and 'Hot Fuzz'.
How was the acting? The acting was very, very good in this film. Simon Pegg was great in it. From beginning to end he portrayed Gary King beautifully. Nick Frost did very well playing Andy Knightly. There were three other main characters in the film. They were Martin Freeman, Paddy Considine, and Eddie Marson. All three of them did well, too. How was the writing? The writing in 'The World's End' was also very good. It had many comedic elements to it that brought many humorous moments. The screenplay was written so that there could be some good action sequences and many humorous moments. There were also aspects of the characters that caused them to do things with their type of reasoning behind it. That was good how character's actions reflected on how the characters were built. Did it have an interesting premise? Yes, the premise was interesting. The fact that there was something going on causing some characters to want to leave and some stay was very good. It was also done well through the directing and writing. There were also good characters. Some were sane, and some were crazy. Some were easy to relate to, and some were outrageous, but in a good way. The film mixed these characters together and it well. I also liked many of the events of the film other than the ending. The ending was a bit of a letdown to me. I can't really say it's bad, but it's not good or mediocre either. It a somewhat over-the-top ending that I didn't think belonged. I'll say it was a little-below-average. The rest of the events, though, were surprising to me. I didn't guess any of the plot points, and many aspects of the plot were good. Was it entertaining or boring? Other than a few dull moments, this film was entertaining. The dull moments were around the middle of the film. There weren't too many of them, but it would've been best if there weren't any dull moments at all. The moments were supported by the fact that the scene had been lasting too long and was the same the whole time, the scene was exactly like the one before it, or the scene containing moments that were supposed to be intense, but were mostly boring. Another "problem" I have with film is that it could have been more enjoyable than it was. This film was enjoyable, but I didn't love these things about it. The good things in the film were not incredible. It could have been more funny, the humorous moments could have been funnier, the times where there were no action sequences or comedic moments could have had elements that made it very enjoyable, and had people get into those moments. The film did hold itself together until the dull moments and after the dull moments, though.. The action sequences were thrilling, and the comedic elements stopped the scenes that would've been slow from being slow. The film was also able to sustain the substance and enjoyable elements due to the mixing of characters that differ from each other. How was it overall? 'The World's End' had very good writing, very, very good acting, an interesting premise, good story, good characters, and for the most part was entertaining, but had a slightly bad ending, some dull moments, and could have been more enjoyable than it was. This film was overall really good and would be worth seeing in the theater. On the grading rating scale, I give it a B+. Do I recommend this film? Yes, because this film was enjoyable for the most and I didn't very many true flaws with it, I would recommend going to see 'The World's End' even at full ticket price. Will I buy this film? No, because of the main fact that it could have been much more enjoyable than it was, and the flaws I had with it, I would not buy this film. I can't see myself watching buying it and watching it again.
How was the acting? The acting was very, very good in this film. Simon Pegg was great in it. From beginning to end he portrayed Gary King beautifully. Nick Frost did very well playing Andy Knightly. There were three other main characters in the film. They were Martin Freeman, Paddy Considine, and Eddie Marson. All three of them did well, too. How was the writing? The writing in 'The World's End' was also very good. It had many comedic elements to it that brought many humorous moments. The screenplay was written so that there could be some good action sequences and many humorous moments. There were also aspects of the characters that caused them to do things with their type of reasoning behind it. That was good how character's actions reflected on how the characters were built. Did it have an interesting premise? Yes, the premise was interesting. The fact that there was something going on causing some characters to want to leave and some stay was very good. It was also done well through the directing and writing. There were also good characters. Some were sane, and some were crazy. Some were easy to relate to, and some were outrageous, but in a good way. The film mixed these characters together and it well. I also liked many of the events of the film other than the ending. The ending was a bit of a letdown to me. I can't really say it's bad, but it's not good or mediocre either. It a somewhat over-the-top ending that I didn't think belonged. I'll say it was a little-below-average. The rest of the events, though, were surprising to me. I didn't guess any of the plot points, and many aspects of the plot were good. Was it entertaining or boring? Other than a few dull moments, this film was entertaining. The dull moments were around the middle of the film. There weren't too many of them, but it would've been best if there weren't any dull moments at all. The moments were supported by the fact that the scene had been lasting too long and was the same the whole time, the scene was exactly like the one before it, or the scene containing moments that were supposed to be intense, but were mostly boring. Another "problem" I have with film is that it could have been more enjoyable than it was. This film was enjoyable, but I didn't love these things about it. The good things in the film were not incredible. It could have been more funny, the humorous moments could have been funnier, the times where there were no action sequences or comedic moments could have had elements that made it very enjoyable, and had people get into those moments. The film did hold itself together until the dull moments and after the dull moments, though.. The action sequences were thrilling, and the comedic elements stopped the scenes that would've been slow from being slow. The film was also able to sustain the substance and enjoyable elements due to the mixing of characters that differ from each other. How was it overall? 'The World's End' had very good writing, very, very good acting, an interesting premise, good story, good characters, and for the most part was entertaining, but had a slightly bad ending, some dull moments, and could have been more enjoyable than it was. This film was overall really good and would be worth seeing in the theater. On the grading rating scale, I give it a B+. Do I recommend this film? Yes, because this film was enjoyable for the most and I didn't very many true flaws with it, I would recommend going to see 'The World's End' even at full ticket price. Will I buy this film? No, because of the main fact that it could have been much more enjoyable than it was, and the flaws I had with it, I would not buy this film. I can't see myself watching buying it and watching it again.
'Kick-Ass' very much surprised me when I saw it. I went into the film with somewhat high expectations, but it exceeded them. I then went into this film with higher expectations than for the first one. My expectations were exceeded in 'Kick-Ass 2', also.
How was the acting?
Overall, the acting in this film was good. Aaron Taylor-Johnson did well in this film like he did in the first one. Chloe Grace Moretz did very well portraying Hit-Girl/Mindy Macready. In this film Mindy goes through many stages, and Moretz portrays her well in all of them. Christopher Mintz-Plasse did very, very well portraying Chris D'Amico, the rich, spoiled kid. Jim Carrey usually plays the same character in the films he stars in, but like Nicolas Cage did in the first one, Carrey played Colonel Stripes and Stars very well.
How was the writing?
The writing in this film was overall very good. The screenplay was written well. The dialog between characters seemed fairly realistic, and character's actions showed reaction to how they are. The density of the characters was also somewhat deep.
Did it have an interesting premise?
This film had an alright premise, but nothing special. The premise of Chris D'Amico building an army to kill Dave Lizewski, and I liked Dave Lizewski teaming up with Colonel Stripes and Stars, Battle Guy, Night B%>#^, and a few other as a "justice league" thing. It shows how good they are, and what good things they do. I however, mostly did not enjoy Mindy Macready's side story with her stopping being Hit-Girl thing. It started off somewhat interesting, but it eventually got somewhat boring and uninteresting. There were some emotional parts that did work, but that was only in one scene. The story of this film was good. I liked the events and I liked where the story was going. There were also some things that happened that were very abrupt and intense and that I didn't expect. That's a positive thing. Those events made me say "wow". They also used more emotion in this film than in 'Kick-Ass'. With as rich as the characters are, it worked for the film and had me on edge in one scene.
Was it entertaining or boring?
Other than a slightly slow beginning, which was better than the slow act in 'Kick-Ass', the film was very entertaining, and very easily enjoyable. The entertaining parts were even more entertaining than in the first installment. Overall, the film was very enjoyable.
What things in particular did I like (that I haven't already covered)?
The directing in 'Kick-Ass 2' was really good, and the action scenes were very thrilling and somewhat intense in some scenes. This film was also more humorous than the first one. There was one scene when everyone in the theater I was in was laughing into the next scene.
What things in particular did I dislike (that I haven't already covered)?
This film didn't have many flaws to me. My only problem with it that I haven't stated is that I think the film could have been done better and have been more entertaining and humorous for what it was.
How was it overall?
'Kick-Ass 2' was a very fun film. It had very thrilling action sequences, comedic qualities, good action, good writing, a bit above average story, and was easily enjoyable and very entertaining. It did have one side story I didn't care for and it could have been more enjoyable and a bit more humorous, though. 'Kick-Ass 2' is a very good film. I give it 3 1/2 out of 4 stars and give it a B+ on the grading rating scale.
Do I recommend this film?
I very much recommend going to see this film in theater, even at regular showing price.
Will I buy this film?
I'm not quite shore if I will buy this film. I possibly will, but I might not.
How was the acting?
Overall, the acting in this film was good. Aaron Taylor-Johnson did well in this film like he did in the first one. Chloe Grace Moretz did very well portraying Hit-Girl/Mindy Macready. In this film Mindy goes through many stages, and Moretz portrays her well in all of them. Christopher Mintz-Plasse did very, very well portraying Chris D'Amico, the rich, spoiled kid. Jim Carrey usually plays the same character in the films he stars in, but like Nicolas Cage did in the first one, Carrey played Colonel Stripes and Stars very well.
How was the writing?
The writing in this film was overall very good. The screenplay was written well. The dialog between characters seemed fairly realistic, and character's actions showed reaction to how they are. The density of the characters was also somewhat deep.
Did it have an interesting premise?
This film had an alright premise, but nothing special. The premise of Chris D'Amico building an army to kill Dave Lizewski, and I liked Dave Lizewski teaming up with Colonel Stripes and Stars, Battle Guy, Night B%>#^, and a few other as a "justice league" thing. It shows how good they are, and what good things they do. I however, mostly did not enjoy Mindy Macready's side story with her stopping being Hit-Girl thing. It started off somewhat interesting, but it eventually got somewhat boring and uninteresting. There were some emotional parts that did work, but that was only in one scene. The story of this film was good. I liked the events and I liked where the story was going. There were also some things that happened that were very abrupt and intense and that I didn't expect. That's a positive thing. Those events made me say "wow". They also used more emotion in this film than in 'Kick-Ass'. With as rich as the characters are, it worked for the film and had me on edge in one scene.
Was it entertaining or boring?
Other than a slightly slow beginning, which was better than the slow act in 'Kick-Ass', the film was very entertaining, and very easily enjoyable. The entertaining parts were even more entertaining than in the first installment. Overall, the film was very enjoyable.
What things in particular did I like (that I haven't already covered)?
The directing in 'Kick-Ass 2' was really good, and the action scenes were very thrilling and somewhat intense in some scenes. This film was also more humorous than the first one. There was one scene when everyone in the theater I was in was laughing into the next scene.
What things in particular did I dislike (that I haven't already covered)?
This film didn't have many flaws to me. My only problem with it that I haven't stated is that I think the film could have been done better and have been more entertaining and humorous for what it was.
How was it overall?
'Kick-Ass 2' was a very fun film. It had very thrilling action sequences, comedic qualities, good action, good writing, a bit above average story, and was easily enjoyable and very entertaining. It did have one side story I didn't care for and it could have been more enjoyable and a bit more humorous, though. 'Kick-Ass 2' is a very good film. I give it 3 1/2 out of 4 stars and give it a B+ on the grading rating scale.
Do I recommend this film?
I very much recommend going to see this film in theater, even at regular showing price.
Will I buy this film?
I'm not quite shore if I will buy this film. I possibly will, but I might not.
'Kick-Ass' brought an incredible hype with it when it came out in 2010. From that they were able to make the sequel, 'Kick-Ass 2'. So I went into 'Kick-Ass' with somewhat high expectations. It met if not exceeded my expectations.
How was the acting?
The acting in 'Kick-Ass' was very good. Aaron Taylor-Johnson did really well as Dave Lizewski and as Kick-Ass. He portrayed Dave Lizewski as a high school student and the character put on a different face for Kick-Ass. Aaron Taylor-Johnson was able to portray Kick-Ass differently, which is what the film was shooting for. Christopher Mintz-Plasse also did very well playing Chris D'Amico. I didn't see him as Fogell from Superbad. Chloe Grace Moretz did very well playing Mindy Macready and portrayed her well as an intimidating 11-year-old. Last of all, Nicholas Cage did extremely well playing Damon Macready. He probably did the best out of all of these actors and actresses. He was amazing in this film.
How was the writing?
The writing in 'Kick-Ass' seemed very realistic. There were many scenes with high school students, and the characters seemed like real high school students. They messed with each other, teased each other, and had comedic dialog throughout the film that was actually humorous. I liked many aspects of the film including the realistic tone of it. I liked how the protagonist, antagonist, and several of the main characters had at least more than one layer to them. I also enjoyed many of the plot events, especially near the end. In the end, there was also a fair amount of emotion in this mixed-genre film. For a usual mixed- genre film, it's just a movie that doesn't know what it wants to be. This film, though, separated the genre into different sections, which would seem lazy, but it actually made the film better. When it wasn't serious, it had comedic elements. When there were action sequences, it had moderately thrilling elements. In a few serious scenes, it had the right score in the background so that it's a drama.
Did it have an interesting premise?
In an action/comedy, one of the main flaws would be the premise. Luckily, this film had an alright premise. It wasn't necessarily good, but it definitely wasn't bad. I'll say it's above average, but somewhat good for what it was.
Was it entertaining or boring?
This film had slow parts near the beginning and middle, which sadly brought the rating down, but for the most part it was entertaining. I thought that they could have sped film up in those acts, but it tried to show too many characters. There were about four sets of characters, which made the film have to split camera time between them, making the scenes somewhat boring. It did pick up after a while, though.
What things in particular did I like (that I haven't already covered)?
'Kick-Ass' had very enjoyable and thrilling action sequences throughout the film. The layered characters were also aspects of the film that made the action sequences more thrilling. The ending of the film was also very satisfying to me. It mixed the right amount of drama and emotion to make the sequences great then.
What things in particular did I dislike (that I haven't already covered)?
The film was not as humorous as I thought it would be. It didn't have a big use of comedic elements, and the ones that were used stayed mostly the same, and got old by the third act of the film.
How was the acting?
The acting in 'Kick-Ass' was very good. Aaron Taylor-Johnson did really well as Dave Lizewski and as Kick-Ass. He portrayed Dave Lizewski as a high school student and the character put on a different face for Kick-Ass. Aaron Taylor-Johnson was able to portray Kick-Ass differently, which is what the film was shooting for. Christopher Mintz-Plasse also did very well playing Chris D'Amico. I didn't see him as Fogell from Superbad. Chloe Grace Moretz did very well playing Mindy Macready and portrayed her well as an intimidating 11-year-old. Last of all, Nicholas Cage did extremely well playing Damon Macready. He probably did the best out of all of these actors and actresses. He was amazing in this film.
How was the writing?
The writing in 'Kick-Ass' seemed very realistic. There were many scenes with high school students, and the characters seemed like real high school students. They messed with each other, teased each other, and had comedic dialog throughout the film that was actually humorous. I liked many aspects of the film including the realistic tone of it. I liked how the protagonist, antagonist, and several of the main characters had at least more than one layer to them. I also enjoyed many of the plot events, especially near the end. In the end, there was also a fair amount of emotion in this mixed-genre film. For a usual mixed- genre film, it's just a movie that doesn't know what it wants to be. This film, though, separated the genre into different sections, which would seem lazy, but it actually made the film better. When it wasn't serious, it had comedic elements. When there were action sequences, it had moderately thrilling elements. In a few serious scenes, it had the right score in the background so that it's a drama.
Did it have an interesting premise?
In an action/comedy, one of the main flaws would be the premise. Luckily, this film had an alright premise. It wasn't necessarily good, but it definitely wasn't bad. I'll say it's above average, but somewhat good for what it was.
Was it entertaining or boring?
This film had slow parts near the beginning and middle, which sadly brought the rating down, but for the most part it was entertaining. I thought that they could have sped film up in those acts, but it tried to show too many characters. There were about four sets of characters, which made the film have to split camera time between them, making the scenes somewhat boring. It did pick up after a while, though.
What things in particular did I like (that I haven't already covered)?
'Kick-Ass' had very enjoyable and thrilling action sequences throughout the film. The layered characters were also aspects of the film that made the action sequences more thrilling. The ending of the film was also very satisfying to me. It mixed the right amount of drama and emotion to make the sequences great then.
What things in particular did I dislike (that I haven't already covered)?
The film was not as humorous as I thought it would be. It didn't have a big use of comedic elements, and the ones that were used stayed mostly the same, and got old by the third act of the film.