People complained about Batman not having enough screen time in 1992 with Batman Returns. well, here it is again. the big difference is that whenever batman appeared in the aforementioned film, it WAS batman, and he was cool. this is not the case with bale. i have now had to endure 2 movies that call themselves "batman" movies, but cmon. don't kid yourself. this is not batman. frankly i am shocked at how the sheep have latched onto Nolan's batman, particularly TDK. i don't really understand it.....what was it that people saw in that dreck i didn't see? as a big fan of the original batman films ala Tim Burton and the FIRST film by Joel Schumacher, i remember going into batman begins all starry eyed and excited to see my favorite hero on screen. needless to say, i was let down. i did read in magazines beforehand the "realism" approach Nolan was taking. i thought OK, it will be dark like Tim Burton's awesome movies, yeah! but.....it was boring. it dragged. the villains were lame. Ra's AL Gaul i mainly knew from the cartoon show with Kevin Conroy i grew up watching. i expected Lazarus pits. didn't get that. the bat mobile looked like a freaking tank. that just ticked me off. I'm still not over that. then came the dark knight. i didn't expect much, given how incredibly lame batman begins was. and i wasn't crazy about the casting of heath ledger as joker. last person in the world i would have cast to play him. ah well, i decided to give it a try, plus the hype was incredible due to ledgers death. it turned out that was the only thing anyone could even remember about the film. its totally unmemorable, and try as i might, i could help but compare ledger to Nicholson. needless to say, ledger doesn't even come close to the genius of jack. the whole look of joker was totally off, looking like a grungy hobo. LAME. while the action is ever so slightly amped up, it never took off for me, and two-face, more like half-a-face, short cameo at the end (yes, thats really all it was) was incredibly insulting. sorry to say, tommy lee Jones still owns that part as he was a major player and played the role to the hilt.
now we have the 3rd movie, and boy am i glad its the last. being the batman fan i am, i knew it would suck but i just had to see it to compare it to the others. in retrospect, i would say batman begins is probably the lesser of 3 evils in this series. at least it followed the traditional batman movie feel, more or less, as well as being the only one to have the word "batman" in the title. i simply do not like going to a batman movie that doesn't have the word batman in the title. "the dark knight" is just Batman's nickname, not his REAL name. its just pure laziness. they could have easily called the 3rd one "batman rises". simple and to the point. dark knight is just stupid sounding. OK now onto the movie. stylistically, Nolan doesn't have a clue how to make a batman movie. did he even watch the previous movies? whatever happened to "does it come in black?". now the freaking tank look like army colors! huh? the helicopter looking thing.... THATS supposed to be an updated bat-plane? huh? looks more like the tumbler grew jets engines and learned how to fly. nope, the Tim Burton/Schumacher bat planes are really BATPLANES. they looked like a bat, not this hunk of junk. the whole deal with batman disappearing for 8 years is....not. batman. batman would not just abandon his city for that long. batman is always out there protecting people in Gotham. he wouldn't let some cops or some dogs stop him. totally out of character. bane looks like a mortal combat reject and catwoman..is it even fair to call her that? what did they do to one of my favorite characters *teardrop* *sniff* they didn't even use the name catwoman! so, she could be "leather clad biker chick" for all we know. for any people or kids who Haven't seen the other films and this is there introduction to the character. i feel bad for them cuz they wont know who it is. the costume is awful, yes even worse and uncatwoman-like then the Halley berry skank version. Michelle pfieffer still owns this part. tragic, dark, sexy and pshycotic on top of being an insanely beautiful woman in the classic grace Kelly mold. Anne Hathaway is a strange looking look duck, and her performance was ultra weak in comparison. even when not comparing to pfieffer, the gold standard of Catwomans, she is still weak. the scene where she dances with bale, when compared with the Keaton/pfieffer scene, shows how superior Tim Burton's films are in just about every way, story wise and artistically. but you cant blame her entirely when you look at the garbage she has to work with. if you watch what pfieffer did with the role, which was pretty damn intense (wrecking apartments in rage, blowing up buildings, killing a guy with a electroshock kiss, getting shot point blank range) there isn't much else you can do with this part. Michelle did it ALL. now bane. despite the mortal combat silly look, i thought he would be more cooler then the B&R bane at the very least. *sigh* once again, lame. the way he breaks Batman's back is stupid, ooh a comics reference! these movies are for the nerds i swear. and cat woman??? kills him? the constant flashbacks, the cheesy dialog, the lack of action *yet again*, killing off Bruce Wayne and showing batman hanging up his cape and cowl for good, is Nolan's last big flip of the bird to the real batman fans who expected more from a modern batman film.
Ah, the good old days, when the Batman movies were fun and cool
Not sure why this movie gets a bad rap these days, especially considering how popular it was back in the day. Its a great entertaining, PROPER batman film, not some pseudo-crime drama borefest like the new ones are. i hate the new movies frankly. hate to break it to ya nerds but new movies are boring, older ones are more entertaining as batman films. this is a fact, not opinion. Forever is NOTHING like Batman & Robin. despite what a lot of jaded cynical "adults" say, this is actually a very good batman film. I perhaps am a bit biased because i LOVED this film when i was 7 and i still think its good today. Its exactly what i believe a batman movie is supposed to be, fun, cool, dark, brooding, colorful villains, cool car, etc. not sure what people mean that the older films aren't "serious". yes they are, they we re done seriously. If the villains didn't have any humour, the movies would be dull as hell! Just look at the new ones, the villains are as dull as dirt. Its got it all, and is the first batman to focus more on Bruce Wayne/batman. not as much as Nolan's films, thankfully. i never found batman as interesting as his villains. sure batman is cool and all, but once you discover that his parents were murdered in front of him and that that is what drove him to become a crime fighter, there really isn't much more to say about him. his villains however, always seem to have some crazy back story that makes them what they are and they are also typically the most fun. however in this film, while they do focus more on batman, they don't have that overtake the film, like in batman begins. i never liked "origin" movies anyway, they are too much like biopics and batman begins is no exception.
Jim Carry....LOL. what can i say? he steals the show, a lot like how jack Nicholson and Danny devito stole the show in there batman films. but this makes sense since riddler is the main villain. two face is also played rather psychotically by tommy lee Jones, but still manages to be funny in a joker-ish way. I'm not the biggest robin fan, but they really managed to make robin work for a film and not in a stupid campy Burt ward way. hes done seriously for the most part, except for that one line where he says "holy rusted metal batman!" lol but it was still fun to see a little nod to the 60's show. unfortunately the sequel did A lot of what the 60's show did, and that is where it started sucking. but Forever was sleek, loud fun and is still 16 years later, one of my favorite batman films. the first 3 were great, and to me they make a really great trilogy of batman films. i wouldn't really say that this movie is a real true "sequel" to Batman Returns, but if you had to put them together, it makes sense as a trilogy. first one is a awesome adventure movie, the 2nd one is the dark brooding 2nd chapter, and the 3rd is the light but still fun more family friendly film, much like they did with star wars and Indiana Jones. too bad B&R mucked things up.
the vehicles are cool too. i always loved the bat mobile in this one, with the blue lights, and the bat boat and bat plane. it was familiar, but fresh and new and the bat cave was HUGE this time. the music score is cool and exciting, but lets face it, Danny elfman is the bat master when it comes to scoring batman films. Hans zimmer....lets not even go there. the guy is a hack and cant write batman music to save his life, just sound effects. but Elliot goldenthal did a great job bringing the "fun" to batman, and a worthy score for this film.
from what i gather from history, this film did tremendously well at the box office. it was a movie that the audience wanted at the time. this was before comic book films got ridiculously superficial and "emo". this was back when comic book films were still allowed to be loud and fun and even a Little over the top. these are the batman films i miss. why did they have to change? sure one can say this film was made for the kid, but honestly, this is a film where "everyone won", as Schumacher put it. the movie was indeed a lot more kid friendly, featured many more "neat" looking bat gadgets/vehicles/suits etc, and was obviously very commercial but at the same time, it was a good story adding new takes on the characters, a new look and just dark enough to be taken seriously while being incredibly entertaining. the audience loved the movie and it was generally well received. the focused more on the hero, the villains were hilariously great, and Nicole kidman added some needed sex appeal to the movie. count in the cool soundtrack and you've got a winner. and i can see why. I'm not a critic and i don't pretend to be. if i like a film, i like a film. and batman is my favorite superhero. someone once said you have to have to heart of a child to enjoy this movie. perhaps so. either way, its a cool movie, even if you didn't watch this as a kid in the 90's, its still a awesome kickass movie to me and always will be.
Yikes, cant believe this film has reached its 20th anniversary! I was only 5 when this hit theaters but I do remember watching this many times on videotape. Anyway, I'm here to give the new revised review of this amazing film. Looking back at the batman movies, this one comes off as rather unique. Its not your atypical comic book movie in that it doesn't just have loads of action with one fight scene after another. not that it doesn't have its fair share of exciting action scenes, but its more about the characters and how they relate to each other, almost like little character studies. there's a reason why the tagline for the movie is "the bat, the cat, the penguin". the movie is all about these 3 characters. One thing that strikes me is the emotional level this film achieves. Its quite amazing what Burton did with the characters, particularly the 2 villains. In the comic books, they are very 2-dimensional characters. Catwoman is just a hot chick who likes to steal things, and Penguin is just a little roly poly guy who wears a tux. If there were ever 2 characters that were in dire need of a face lift, its these 2. Tim Burton gives them both a rather incredible amount of depth and pathos. Penguin is a deformed guy who years after being dumped in the sewer, seeks revenge not only against Gotham city, but more specifically, its children. Talk about a disturbed individual. Catwoman on the other hand was a quiet put upon woman treated badly by her employer, who eventually tries to kill her. This makes her go into a fit of rage, a sequence in which Selina totally lets loose in her apartment, which is quite a powerful scene and which also shows why I love Michelle pfeiffer. Very, very talented actress. Its in this moment she becomes cat woman. Sure beats the hell out of the comics version. Then there is Batman, once again dark and brooding Michael Keaton, born to play this part, who has seemingly no life beyond waiting for that big bat in the sky to call him to duty. During the course of the movie, all these characters go in and out of each others lives, betray each other, love each other, fight each other. The 3 leads are superb together, and the casting for this movie is PERFECT. I mean cmon, who else could possibly play the Penguin? Seriously? But besides the action scenes and the amazing visuals that Burton does so well, there is something about this movie, a kind of sad feeling, especially during the climax. These aren't just your typical run of the mill comic book villains and heroes. These are deeply hurt, deeply scarred people who inhabit this dark wonderland of Gotham city. The penguin acts and behaves like your usual crazy super villain, but at the same time you realize, why is he targeting little kids as his aim of his revenge? Because he himself was thrown into the sewer as a small child and now wants to reenact this on the children of Gotham. Hes hurting. Catwoman and Batman are both messed up which makes them perfect for each other, but they can never truly be together because of the very things that draw them together. The ballroom scene between Selina and Bruce is one of the best scenes in the movie.
What can I say, Tim Burton is a master of visuals, a true genius of dark filmmaking. Such is his talent of creating an amazing and creepy atmosphere. He is, as far as I'm concerned, the only guy fit to direct a batman movie. He just gets it. The nerds and basment dwellers who judge a movie simply on how accurate it is to the source material are just narrow minded haters, especially since its popular right now to hate on the older films in order to "prop up" the newer movies. the comics by the way, are not the Bible. characters and origins are constantly changing and being re-envisioned by different artists writers. one minute penguin is a tux wearing, snooty, intelligent human being, the next hes a monstrous, bulbous, disgusting slob with claws/"flippers" and long greasy hair. nothing remains the same for too long in the comics, so when it comes to comic books, nothing in set in concrete. its more up to personal taste, and i believe that burton took the source material and simply added to its greatness. he took the characters and made them so much more compelling then they ever were in the comic books. isn't that what the films are supposed to do?
Its really quite sad to see people and the weird crazy internet culture having this massive hard-on for Christopher Nolan's boring, bourgeois bland take on the character. heath ledger did not deserve the Oscar, and was the worst version of joker I've ever seen. Out of all 6 batman films made, none of them I believe have the same kind of raw emotion of this particular batman film.
I also like the film also because it deals with outcasts, of which I feel very much an outcast in many ways so I can relate to it. Heck even here on IMDb I am an outcast, as I hate movies that most people seem to love and I love movies people seem to hate! I hate the new Batman's. I think they are dull lifeless garbage. Does that make me Mr. popular or what? But I stick to my thoughts and wont bend just to make some stupid shmoe happy. So there's always this tension with people because my tastes are different. Lets face facts here, most modern versions of thing's suck, and that includes the new batmans. the original 3 are the best, simple as that.
i recently came across this movie again after having not seen it in years. i saw it as a kid and i remembered it did freak me out, but as an adult now, i cannot recommend it. i could barely get through it and was shocked at some of the things i was seeing. the original cape fear didn't need to show rape, blood and gore, cussing/profanity to be effective. turning the good guy into a "morally ambiguous" good guy was such a bad move for a story like this. pecks character was so good in the original, which made the the cady character seem even more evil, whereas here hes not really that good of a person thus you almost don't care about what happens to him that much. the original had better actors and though deniro does crazy well, he sucks in comparison to mitchum. they turned cady into some over the top horror movie villain, complete with Freddy Krueger makeup near the end, and deniro got an Oscar nod for this?
Scorsese seems to only know how to make sensationalistic, extremely violent, disturbing movies and cant just tell a good story without injecting some kinda ultra sadism or blood and guts into it. ever think of the motto "less is more" martin? i think Scorsese is a very disturbed individual.
just saw the film a few hours ago with that movie money i got with the bluray predator.
the film itself is really stupid compared to the first (even offbeat second) brilliant film. like many here i actually think predator 2 felt more like a predator film then this did. at least that was original. there were so many homages to the first film in this one it started to feel like a remake and not a sequel. also none of the characters were likable and died off too quick to even care. those stupid looking CGI alien things were pointless and the new predators looked pretty retarded, even more then the AVP predators. and once again, a human siding with a predator? thats very hard to believe. i just couldn't buy little Adrian Brody taking on a predator in hand to hand combat. and like i said, the homages were one too many and some of them were so stupid like the Chinese guy taking out his sword like billy with the SAME music, and Laurence fishburne going "over here over here, turn around turn around turn around". it became almost laughable how many times they tried to reference the other movie. at least ATTEMPT to be original. just cuz the movie takes place on another planet while having every other scene reference the '87 movie doesn't mean that your being "original", just ripping off. the CGI for the predators while they were fighting, every time they hit the ground they glowed blue, that was so dumb and distracting. and Adrian Brody yelling "im right here kill mee!" basically copying Arnold with the mud and everything was so stupid!! and why was Laurence fishburne in this? he was in it for like only 5 minutes then gets blown up really fake like. also, playing "long tall sally" during the end credits makes NO SENSE AT ALL. yes, again, it was used in the original film as the guys were going to the jungle, but that made sense since they were just in a chopper listening to old-school rock. in this movie there is no such thing happening, so playing that song makes absolutely no sense in the context of this movie. it just serves as yet another homage (im getting tired of that word) to the first film but doesn't serve any point whatsoever.
I went in hoping it would be something different, but Predator 2 was much better then this. this one felt like an extremely lame ripoff of the first movie. if your any kind of fan of the original, save yourself from this corny cringe-worthy remake, er, "sequel".
I saw this when it came out in the theater, and i now own it on bluray DVD. this is Stallone's 3rd awesome hit hes made in recent years. he went away for a while, but he came back as strong as ever with Rocky Balboa, which was surprisingly great and touching. then he brought Rambo back as hard hitting (and as violent) as ever. now comes Stallone's 3rd hit, Expendables. and let me tell you, its got everything you could want: loads of action upon action, a cast of Grade A action stars, hot female lead, great dialog and some truly funny humor. this was Stallone trying to recapture the energy and explosiveness of those infamous 80's action films he used to make (heck, still does) and it does not disappoint. the chases are done very well, the acting is top notch for a film like this, and the hand to hand combat is pretty spectacular, especially considering Stallone's age. he really is a legend, and hes still got it! this was better then many of the other so-called "action" movies that are flooding theaters lately, like those terrible Bourne movies, all those TV show remakes, the new Batman's, etc. this beats them all, because it doesn't pretend to be something more then it is: a really bad ass action movie. no silly pretentious rambling monologues, no sappy love stories, no soap opera drama. just plain and simple ass kicking, balls to the wall action, but not without connecting you with the characters. the other great thing is that this is an ORIGINAL. not a remake, not a sequel, not a "reboot", a totally original film with stallone. the team mentality is cool here, WAY better then the new A team movie. these guys are the real deal. words i suppose cannot describe how just plain cool this movie is. action stars from this generation as well as the last are all here, all the big names, even a cameo from ARNIE and Bruce! jet Li is hilarious, SO awesome to see Ivan drago back fighting rocky...ER i mean Dolph lundren fighting Stallone once again! Eric Roberts plays the typical skeevy sleaze bag hes so good at, stone cold.....what a MONSTER. this guy is scary, and plays a formidable foe to sly and his gang of freedom fighters. mickey Rourke provides the heart and soul and the movie, with one truly amazing scene where he talks about how he could have saved his soul by saving another's. almost brought tears to my eyes. in short, this is probably one of THE best most fulfilling action experiences in recent years. in a time filled with CGI overload and everything seems to take itself so seriously, here comes a movie that doesn't try to be anything other then a simple giant blockbuster filled to the brim with brutal fist fights and explosions. i hope Hollywood is taking notes here: THIS is how to make an proper action movie, the way they USED to make them. the movie has it all, and i am really hoping the sequel will be just as good, if not better.
i admit when i first heard this was coming out i was a bit excited, but daaaamn this really sucked! NOTHING like the TV show, they destroyed the van! in the first few minutes! that was strike number 1. second, Bradley cooper was awful and Liam neeson trying so hard to cover up his accent with a bad fake American one was just plain embarrassing. strike 2. then the much looked forward to cameo I've heard about of Dwight and dirk was f'ing LAME! strike 3! then on top of all that, Patrick Wilson and Jessica biel: NEED I SAY MORE. most annoying grating actors I've ever seen. in short, SCREW THIS MOVIE. lame cash-in of a classic TV series. watch the original TV show instead.
i just bought this game for the xbox 360, as i am a Jurassic park fan and i loved the movies as a kid, but was sad they never got to make a next gen console game based on the movies. well, low and behold, alongside the anticipated release of the film series on bluray, they have a game to go along with it. i was at first excited, but when i found out the game is from a lesser known company and that its more of a "budget" game, i was turned off. however, i still plunked down the cash just to see if it was any good. i guess i am just too big of a JP fan to pass this up.
OK, so here it is. the game takes you through a separate story that is happening during the same time frame of the first Jurassic park film. a park vet Gerry Harding and his daughter jess spending time together, and of course when the park shuts down and all hell breaks loose is when the story picks up. there is also a subplot that deals with the shaving cream can with the DNA that was seen in the first film, and how a few different mercenary characters are all trying to obtain it to get the big bucks its worth. its basically the "macguffin" of the story. during the first few levels, at first i thought, oh the graphics (in comparison to many other games) are REALLY bad, and the story/dialogue seems pretty cheesy, but i soon realized that the game actually puts a lot of effort into the story telling and dialogue. its not your stereotypical action "shooting up dinosaurs" type of game. this is more about the story, which is surprisingly good. i think this was the big strength of the game, despite the not quite polished graphics (could have taken another few months to perfect, at least). it reminded me of the "enter the matrix" game for the matrix movies. could have been muuch better graphics wise if more time was given. also, in scenes involving lots of fast moving and action, the game tends to get all glitchy and freeze or slow down. reminded me of an old PC game or something. its definitely a budget game, no question. but the story and characters are the strength. there is no shooting, but a lot of action choosing, like you choose what your character will say to another, or solving some puzzles, or making movements by pressing RB or LB and things like that. very easy game, that is done in 4 "episodes". i assume this game was online somewhere that was then released as a console game for the bluray movie release.
all in all, i actually enjoyed it, but the replay value is very minimal, but if your a Jurassic park fan like i am, you will defiently get some enjoyment out of this effort. its definitely more of a one time play so i would rent this.
"Something Wicked This Way Comes" is SO much better then this!
i saw this only once when i was a kid. i vaguely remembered it, all i remember is a girl with a blindfold and a church. so many years later, my mom saw this on DVD and picked it up, thinking we might enjoy it. we had recently seen "something wicked this way comes", another movie i vaguely remembered as a child, which was really scary and excellent film, especially for Disney, and was very dark, and we thought "watcher" would be in the same vein as "wicked", since they were only made a few years apart. but it was definitely not. it was far worse! the ending with the "alien" thing or whatever, and some explanation of an "aternate reality" totally killed it for me. holly Lynn Johnson, though definitely a cutie, was REALLY bad acting. like, annoyingly bad. the story seemed to take forever to pick up, i didn't understand. Davis was not very good either. nothing stood out. i was especially disappointed that it wasn't a "ghost story" in the end, but some kinda scifi plot with switching the bodies back and forth because of some kind of weird chant the kids did in the chapel. didn't get it at all, and it got WAY too scifi. i thought the whole time it would be something supernatural. just lame. something wicked this way comes which came out a few years later was FAR Superior, genuinely scary, great acting, and just all around a better film from Disney studios.
Not a good Batman film. Over-rated in the Extreme.
damn i cant believe the reviews for this film. I've only seen this twice and don't plan on seeing it again anytime soon, and this coming from a lifelong batman MOVIE fan (note the emphasis on MOVIE, not COMICS).I've seen the original film 200000 times and i loved all the sequels, even the "campy" Schumacher ones. but boy did they take this franchise in a reverse direction. JUST because batman & robin was terrible and silly doesn't make Christopher Nolan's films the comic book equivalent of the "godfather" or gone with the frigging wind. if anything, they only show how amazing Tim Burton's 2 original dual pictures are, and how utterly lame the Nolan ones are. not only is "the dark knight" worse then batman begins, its downright ridiculous! you feel like you need a degree in law to understand what the hell they are talking about. its like CSI meets Gotham city. you might as well call this movie GCPD or GCPD Blue, or any of those law and order-type shows that this movie seems to copy from. its even more silly when you look at the lengths the director went through to make this batman movie as boring as possible. they seem to think "if the story is engaging enough, we don't have to make the movie visually appealing". thats like saying "if the story is good enough, we don't have to make batman look awesome in the comics".
lets get this review started shall we? first, the joker. we are all familiar I'm sure with jack Nicholson's classic portrayal from the original film. it was truly amazing, he made the character eerie, funny, and charming all at once. yet he seemed to understand that this character is based off cartoons and as such you cant take yourself all that seriously. this is the complete opposite of what heath ledger does with the same role. but i guess you cant really blame the actor entirely with Nolan wanting to change up batman and his world to the point that the characters aren't really who they should be. first off, joker doesn't fall in a vat of acid like the original, he puts on makeup and cuts his own smile and dyes his hair green. i would hate to see his joker in the rain, he would look rather pathetic as a joker. i can guarantee that if Nicholson didn't already do this classic comics origin 20 years ago in the awesome first film, fan boys would be crying that joker was turned into common serial killer done a million times over in other films and not the funny amusing comic book clown prince of crime that everyone is more familiar with. oh, but since Nicholson already played THAT version to perfection, Nolan was somehow able to get away with turning joker into a common killer that we've seen time and again. Heath didn't really even play the Joker, he played "generic serial killer bad guy #13314". for those who would defend ledger by saying he was "really scary and terrifying", sure ill give them that, but to say he was better than NICHOLSON?!? JACK FREAKING NICHOLSON?!? PLEEEEEEEEEEASE!!! The role was virtually MADE for the man when he was born. Nicholson captured the true essence of the Joker; a psychopathic man child out not to prove a good damn thing, but to kill and mess around with people all for the laughs. THESE are traits that define the Joker, not some cliché ideal of wanting people to accept that evil exists in all of us. and that brings me to another point, whats with this jokers anarchist pseudo-philosophic rambling monologues? boy Nolan LOVES these cardboard deep monologues he has his character spew out all the time, even in the last film. its laughable at how serious he takes the movie. did he forget this is based off of comic books and that there are supposed to be fun elements in the film? Tim Burton struck the perfect balance of comic book and reality. its somewhere right in the middle. Nolan puts a guy in a bat suit and places him right in middle of an unaltered real life city. it makes him look silly and out of place.
I'm not gonna dwell much on bales batman. this guy cant save any movie hes in. people seem to love this guy, or think hes some brilliant actor, but hes obviously just a wooden actor and once again phoned in his "performance" in this film. to quote Christopher walken from Batman Returns, "hes just a poor schmo, who got lucky". his batman voice is ludicrous. ludicrous! i still don't understand why they decided to make batman sound like an engine turning over. every time he talks he makes me laugh. the only decently done things in this film is how Harvey dent is portrayed (pre-twoface) and the pretty nifty bat pod, that has ONE cool scene in which it bursts from the bat mobile. but again, the action scenes never pick up because of Nolan's hard on for realism, so nothing in the new Batman films ever makes you go "OOH Awesome" for too long. this movie just dragged and i remember looking at the clock as to when it would end. they make it feel like the new Batman's are "smart" but honestly, in a comic book movie who the heck wants to listen to all this law and order talk and long drawn out "deep" monologues? its so....meh. i'd rather watch jack Nicholson laugh like a maniac shooting his henchman and making me laugh. who can forget gems like "bob, gun". today you have "why so serious?". yeah thats what i want to know, why so serious Nolan?? why cant you make batman fun? nothing against having darkness, Burton's films were dark too but not so much to the point where they weren't fun or exciting. again, disappointed.
it felt like some basic cheesy cliché action movie, with the quick cuts and lethal weapon-type action. nothing new. the intro was so stupid, like who cares? stop showing tom cruise cry like a baby for his "girl". i liked john woos slow motion artsy-type fights TONS better (not to mention cruise looking cooler with long hair and real "dude" like). the other 2 felt more original in a sense, with the first one still being the best of the 3, as usual. this movie felt more like a rip of the Bourne movies, which i also think suck. and the dialogue was terrible, TERRIBLE, like that Humpty Dumpty line which fit no purpose at all, like am i watching MI movie or sponge bob? the villain, Seymour whatever, he was lame. REALLY lame. worst villain in any action movie i have ever seen. he was like this total nerd that acted like a tough guy or something, like he just came off as hysterically funny to me. he never seemed deadly, just weird and funny, like he was doing a comedy. the whole part with Ethan almost ejecting him off the plane was HYSTERICAL!!!! i laughed a lot at that scene, like i actually had tears in my eyes laughing. same with Keri Russel getting killed that her brain imploded, LOL, her face and everything, and it was like supposed to be all intense but came off REALLY silly and funny. i just thought this was the worst entry in the series by far, i hope they don't make any more and JJ Abrams really sucks with directing. just terrible. i also thought cruise "marrying" someone and living a "normal" life was also pathetic. this is a mission impossible action film and they tried to make it all emotional and deep. oh brother, this is why the first one is tons better, even the 2nd. and his girls comment about the name IMF stands for was utterly ridiculous, like what is this a movie or a self parody? horrible. and the plot was also a lot of drivel, didn't make ANY sense, about the stupid "rabbits foot", oh brother, thats so cliché and typical to keep you in suspense, like What is a rabbits foot? i say, who CARES! it was stupid anyway! and Laurence fishburne was totally wasted in this. my opinion? don't see this one, only if you like lame brained action movies with bad dialogue and stupid plots.
The movie that changed cinema for the better amidst dark 70's garbage
i wasn't born in the 70's, i wasn't around when this first came out. i was a child of the 90's, and grew up watching these on video tapes and the 1997 special editions. however, that doesn't make a difference, these movies were extremely awesome and still are. i now can enjoy them on my big HDTV on bluray quality. and this is probably my favorite of the 3 original films. but having seen many other movies since i first saw star wars, i must say, i feel bad for kids who grew up in the 70s! i mean, what movies did they have to watch that was for kids? i feel a bi spoiled because i grew up watching the awesome films of the 80's and 90's. but in the 70's, all these movies about twisted anti-heroes, exploitation films and dark and downright disturbing story lines. talk about a dreary era in cinema! Rocky was probably one of the few movies that actually featured a real honest good hero and not some taxi driver deadly gross anti-hero crap.
then came Star Wars. the biggest movie not just of the decade, but of all time. it shattered records and was a film kids as well as adults fell in love with, and to no surprise. its not meant to be some deep dark drama about killers and rapists etc, its just a lighthearted action filled adventure that gave moviegoers hope in a decade of real trash cinema (oh excuse me, "high art" *rolles eyes*). star wars literally saved the world (of cinema) from the depths of some real perverted filmmakers of the time (kubrick, scorsece, etc). families and kids could finally go to a movie and not be affronted with disturbing messages and images. what a relief! and movie's were forever changed. the following year, Superman the movie came out and also was a film families and kids could enjoy, and after that, the awesome 80's came and was a decade that featured some of the best action adventure films in the history of cinema. Indiana Jones, gremlins, all those big Arnold and Stallone films, Batman, back to the future, Ghostbusters, etc. ALL thanks to Star Wars. and the tradition continues to this day. thank you Lucas for saving movies and not letting it get sucked into the black hole of 70's dark twisted cinema.
i love bill Murray and to an extent Chevy chase, and i love Dangerfield! but i really disliked this movie, a lot. bill Murray had only a couple funny moments. i know he was just starting out in movies and was playing his typical dumb retard role, but he was painfully unfunny, which is shocking to me. the pool scene i thought was his funniest moment. Dangerfield was the funniest to me, but honestly, this movie was just NOT funny! animal house and this are probably the 2 most overrated stupid dumb movies I've ever seen! i don't watch comedies a lot because most "modern" comedies are nothing but crude offensive humor. caddyshack isn't the worst in this regard but its just so....stupid. so stupid that its not funny. my dad loves this movie, he can quote it for crying out loud! but i found it just plain bad. the fact that Harold ramis wrote and directed these makes it even worse! i love that guy, especially as Egon, and i loved his other movies like groundhog day and analyze this, and vacation and stripes were pretty good too, and of course ghostbusters 1 and 2, but his "early" films were really just banal fare for the 12-16 year old crowd who find potty jokes funny.
i am 24 and i haven't seen almost any surf movies from the 60's so this was my first one. i really enjoyed it and i hope to see more of these kinds of movies! i really wish they would go back to making cute beach movies like this nowadays, almost all movies today have way too much cursing, nudity, over the top blood and gore, sex scenes, etc. you don't need all that in a surf movie! this was such a joy to watch, not only Barbara eden from Jeanie but 2 more other beautiful gals, Shelly fabres aka the cute girl from the Donna reed show who i would think is the "main" girl, followed by Barbara and then by some black haired beauty that i don't think i'd seen before. and of course there are 3 "hunks" for the girls to get and all this male ego drama with the surf competitions. one boy goes to school full time, one boy works full time, and one doesn't work or go to school, he just surfs all day. one by one they meet these fabulously gorgeous girls and it takes off from there. it was actually really good and so much fun to watch this and even though the guys were obviously in great shape with there tanned lean bodies for the girls in the audience, the 3 girls are just SO HOT! i was so drooling at Shelly and Barbara, it was like heaven! i loved Shelly's innocence and sweetness, ah if only there were girls like that in todays world! this movie really seems to hearken back to a day when girls were girls and guys were guys. today we live in a world it seems devoid of real men who enjoy being men and real women who really enjoy being women. its really a sad state of affairs, and i blame womens lib and all that rubbish for that. but this film was so nice and pleasant and wish the world was just as pleasant. ah, only a movie like this could they make it seem so easy to meet girls like this! girls and boys who really want to fall in love and not just some one night stand. it was adorable and i guess thats the kind of romance i hope to find one day. i know its a stretch but still! anyway, other notable appearances were Robert mitchums son who looks SO MUCH like his dad its not even funny! also it was so funny to see Roger Davis, who i had been watching quite recently as Peter on the "Dark Shadows" TV show. and a lot of familiar faces that i couldn't quite pinpoint, like that dark haired girls mother. all in all, with the very funny "back projection" surfing and the dialog, its so very 60's and i truly love it! i would recommend this for all the girls and the boys out there who love surf movies without the sex drugs and violence you see in todays movies. i wish i grew up back then!
Great great movie, great actors, great effects, great music, great EVERYTHING!
I like many saw this as a kid and was so super enthralled. the movie was fun, scary and at times LAUGH OUT LOUD funny. people who only watch this for the special effects must pay attention to the dialog and story. its actually very deep and raises certain questions rely questioned in movies today. this movie for some reason people skip over the acting, but cm on! its got some of the best actors here doing probably there best work. who can forget Jeff goldblum as Ian Malcolm?? this guy was hilarious, almost every bit of dialog he said was brilliantly funny and just his whole unique idiosyncratic personality added so much to the film. no wonder he was cast again in "the lost world", although he was sadly less funny in that one. then you got Sam Niel as Alan grant, again, brilliant actor who fit his role perfectly and you really believed he was this smart scientist dinosaur guy. he was very down to earth and a very caring rugged type of guy, and also very likable in the main role. laura dern is perhaps the weak spot, at times she kinda annoyed me but yet at the same time, she was very real and her and Sam Neil had great chemistry. however i don't like what they did to them in JP3, it contradicts the ending of JP1, but ah well, i tend to just ignore JP3 ever happened. the kid actors are actually very good, the boy was so cute and funny always following grant around and being the comedy relief, and the girl wasn't bad either. its surprising actually, 2 kid actors that didn't annoy me! how refreshing! and even the small roles like with the fat guy dennis and the small role of samuel l jackson as the computer guy and of course the badass muldoon "SHOOT HEEER!" were actually really great acting and often times very funny! anyway, almost 20 years later i still remain impressed and this is a film that is not to be missed, and if i ever have kids i look forward to sharing this film with them, thats how much i love this movie!
One of those great violent 80's flicks thats got a decent message
This is a great movie ha ha, everything about it, the hilariously over the top punks that there seems to be an endless supply of harassing the poor elderly people, the "giggler" hahaha, the old guy with a HUGE machine gun in his cabinet, the "love interest" that seems to fit no purpose cept to look pretty for 10 minutes and then die, the last 20 minutes that is nothing but Bronson and co. shooting the hell out of street thugs, and the dialogue. just.....so amazing, its so bad yet so good ha ha. and just like in every death wish movie they gotta have a "rape" scene with nude breasts flying everywhere. man you just don't see movies like this anymore lol.
however lets get one thing straight, despite the film being unintentionally funny, i am all for Paul kersey and his vigilante-ism. from the first film i can see that there really is no other way of dealing with these a holes and scumbags. of course we only wish we had the guts that Paul kersey has to chop down these evil spawn of the devil, but most of us are probably too scared. the scene where the dumb-ass police take away the gun from the old Jewish couple is disturbing when there is blood and crime going on just feet away from there apartment (even inside of it). these movies are disturbing yes, because they show that there is almost nothing we can do to defend ourselves in a culture of hate and evil because the "system" wont let us. then Paul kersey comes in, showing that the people can fight back and not take no crap from these unrepentant scum. yes these movies show the punks as completely evil and not good in any way, but lets not fool ourselves into thinking "its just a movie". its not. there are really people like this out in the world and even though its not good to kill for no reason, if punks like this are harassing you and have nerve enough to kill you, there is no reason why you shouldn't be able to defend yourselves. these movies definitely take these situations out of proportions, but things like this happen, and this particular death wish film shows that we should NOT lay down our lives for these scumbags, but to make sure we are prepared to defend ourselves. the film is funny though, and certainly pretty hilarious at times, but this stuff isn't just in the movies and we should always have the rights to defend ourselves, despite what the wimpy liberals want you to think.
How in the hell has this been running as long as it has?
i don't get it. i just don't get it. i see this show on TV for almost 10 years now and i have only watched 1 episode. why? because this show looks nothing like superman yet it dares to carry the superman name. its nothing but a freaking dawsons creek wannabe! its not true to the character and it takes a ton of liberties with the mythology. superman was never a emo boy who had wild sex with girls. i mean, they actually have clark kent sleeping around with chicks! superman would never take advantage of girls like that and take drugs and do all the crazy crap they have him do in this show. i always thought of superman as a conservative type of guy. here, he is clearly not. and yet he has this laughable "moral code". he contradicts himself so often in this show, its maddening! its so wrong. they just had to sex up superman. look, i know sex sells, but to add it to supermans world is friggin ridiculous! i originally thought this show would be cool but its nothing but the same teen garbage they have made in lots of similar minded shows. just pathetic.
i tend to love playing movie based games if its based on a movie franchise i like a lot, and of all the past and present Indy games, this is easily hands down the best. the recent "staff of kings" was extremely weak in comparison, as that was mainly meant for the Nintendo wii and its gimmicky lame "motion" controllers. but this game, while not perhaps having the best graphics in the world, its light-years better. its structured like a movie, which i really liked. it has its own soundtrack, and a very intricate storyline. the other thing about the game i noticed last time i played is that its long. pretty long. i was surprised, because movie based games are usually very short and linear. this game though really felt like you were in a movie and moved the storyline along. you battle Nazi's and Chinese warriors and even meet a cameo character from Temple of Doom which was neat. the game is challenging, and you have to use your head to solve some puzzles which was nice cuz they are hard but not too hard. it had many different side game parts, like shooting down airplanes with a big gun or running and swinging away from a giant tank, or solving puzzles. the game has it all, and i actually got it only a couple years ago used. the storyline is strong as well, and you got the typical Chinese and Nazi villains, including one German with a weird voice and white eye. the other cool thing was that they actually used the term "Nazi" and used the swastika. i say this because in "staff of kings", the recent game that came out last year, did not have the swastika (instead it was a cross) and used the word "Germans" instead of Nazi's. there's even this one part where Indy says "Germans, why'd it have to be Germans" *BIG EYE ROLL*. just awful. but this game definitely had the more authentic feel. if your any kind of fan of Indiana Jones, this is the game to get.
so, once again I'm reviewing a movie that i grew up with. i was a child of the 90's, and i distinctly remember 3 films my mom bought on video when they came out: Mission Impossible, Twister, and ID4. ID4 was my favorite of the 3, and still is. there is a lot more to this film then just the special effects. its got heart. thats why i like it. there is also this kind of innocence to it, a child like sense of wonder that has only been seen in films like the original Star Wars. it doesn't take itself ultra seriously but seriously enough for you to feel for the characters. Jeff goldbloom is one of my favorite actors so it was great to see him in this. Jurassic park and ID4 are 2 of my favorite action films so seeing him in this as well was a great treat. will smith, before he became huge with "Men In Black" the following year, was also great and funny as well. bill pullman is very good as the president, he definitely looks like one here and is very likable and perhaps a bit too "calm" when the aliens take over. if that were me i would have been going crazy, yet Pullman's president stays strangely calm and collected throughout. amazing! we need a president that is that cool under pressure! harry connick junior makes a brief but memorable role as the "biggs" character for this movie (for those star wars fans out there, you know what i mean). there were a lot of parts in this movie that seemed directly lifted from the original Star Wars. the giant saucer ships are like the death star, the F-18's have replaced X-wings and likewise the alien attackers have replaced Tie Fighters. you even have a unlikely hero like Luke skywalker in randy quaids character, especially at the very end in the plane.
the movie has enough laughs and suspense to keep you going and is very well cast. the action however is simply amazing. you must remember, this was in a time when CGI had not yet taken over cinema, so computer effects were used at a minimum. but that is what makes the special effects in this movie GREAT! CGI today is terribly overused to the point where movies have come to look like video games. they look awful. the effects in the 80's and most of the 90's still used practical effects using models and miniature's for the action. and boy did they do an amazing job with ID4. the ships, particularly the mammoth command ships, are a site to see, especially if you have an HDTV on bluray. it is MASSIVE. they cover the cities like a huge shadow. it was obviously a real ship they used, not lame phony looking CGI. and the effect would not have looked anywhere near as real or scary if CGI was used. the explosions were also real. when the white house blew up, or the empire state building, or congress, those are REAL explosions, and WOW did it look impressive. you just don't see that kind of explosions today. take for example the newer Star Wars prequels. EVERYTHING looks fake! every set was blue screen and looked incredibly smooth and unreal. almost nothing was a prop or real set, it was just horrible. why don't they just go back to the way they used to film special effects? it looked 1 million times more real and actually were almost TOO real for comfort! again, they just don't make them like they used to and its sad.
another thing to note is David Arnold's INCREDIBLE music score for this film. no, not that retarded REM song. i mean the film score itself. its very heroic, big, EPIC. it really makes you root for our heroes when the triumphant pro-American theme starts playing. it really gets your heart pumping with excitement when you couple the amazing action scenes with Arnold's superb score. the film wouldn't be anywhere near as good without it. parts that kind made me laugh was when they are planning the attack with all the countries, and when they show Russia, this very slavic sounding version of the ID4 theme is heard, complete with deep male singers and tambourine HAHA. this part was very old school. not to go overboard with the star wars references, but there were many moments in the score i noticed where it sounds very john William's-like, but thats fits this kind of movie perfectly.
in the end, this is one of my favorite movies and despite what cynical reviewers may say, this is a great fun night out at the movies if there ever was one, right up there with original Star Wars trilogy! now go out and SEE IT!
This is the only one that truly FELT like a MI movie
this is such an under-appreciated movie, its definitely the best of the 3. didn't HATE the 2nd one, but the movie got way too stylized and "rock & roll" looking. and the 3rd one......forget it, that one just sucked. unlike the 2 sequels, this one actually FEELS like a mission impossible movie. the other 2 just felt like typical action crap. this one had the cool gadgets, the "agency" feel with all the different hackers and agents working undercover, the cool stealth-ness, it just had that "spy/mission impossible" feel that the other ones got more and more away from. it also has an incredible danny elfman score that really got that spy/sneaky/action sound with the right hint of quirkiness, and no tampering with the original MI theme (at least until the U2 version at the end credits, which i thought was a brilliant take on the MI theme). the stunts were very "MI" like, the whole fighting on the bullet train finale was amazing, and who could forget that scene of trying to quietly infiltrate CIA headquarters? that scene has been parodied time and time again, one of the best scenes in the movie. simply put, this is the best of the 3 films, and it has a good spy story to go with it. its not just tom cruise playing James bond, "stopping the evil villain" etc, it actually was about him being framed by the agency and you don't even know who the real bad guy is until the end. it was really well done, and not THAT confusing. after you watch it a few times, you actually get it. the movie makes you THINK, which is what i like about it. and all the performances were great. ving raymes, tom cruise, everyone. if your going to see a Mission Impossible movie, see this one, the first and the greatest.
Ugh, another poor post-modern view at love. Old fashioned romance movies are officially dead.
so, a friend rented this movie and since she was a chick, i decided to sit through it. I'm a guy, but secretly i do enjoy those corny love movies, or "chick flicks", every once in a while. however i tend to watch the ones that are shown on TCM or any old movie channel because old movies tended to have a sweetness and a kind of innocence to them. you weren't allowed to curse or show nudity or any of that. thats why i like those old fashioned romance movies. today, there is a fine line between romance movie and sex comedy. the only romance movie in recent times that i can think of that was actually good was "a walk in the clouds" with keanu reeves. that movie was not ponly beautiful looking, but it had an old fashioned heart and a beauty on the inside that really touched me in a good way.
however, films nowadays, i would even say for the past 30 or so years, romance films have been getting progressively worse. a "romance" film these days must include senseless scenes of sex, nudity, swearing and sometimes very crude "humour". love actually isn't the worst when it comes to this, but this movie actually showed promise but again fell very short of what it could have been: a nice sweet tale of romance (or romance's). the perfect example of the grossness is the naked couple who are constantly talking while doing some kind of strange nude scenes. personally, i found these parts of the movie pretty distasteful for a "romantic" movie. was it supposed to be funny? it was just weird, and odd. but they talk like they just met and they act all nervous and shy while doing these random sex acts? am i supposed to laugh at the paradox? wasn't funny to me, it actually was pretty sick. things like this in movies show just how uninhibited society has become where people can just get naked in front of you and act like its nothing (not saying everyone does but you get my point). pretty disturbing stuff. remember a time when women were so afraid to even show there knees or ankles? boy had the apple fallen far from the tree where you live in a society where prostituting ones self is perfectly normal and acceptable. very sad.
the rest of the relationships offer nothing much that we haven't already seen elsewhere. i also didn't like the amount of swearing in it. it just came off as awkward and unneeded, especially since the film takes place around Christmastime. it could have been sweet. it could have been nice. but what it is is a post-modern strange look at love. the only story lines that were actually not too bad and kinda sweet was the writer falling in love with the house cleaner and the office woman who sacrifices love for her mentally ill brother. i have one question though: was is REALLY necessary for the house cleaner girl to take off all her clothes (in a very slow manner) just to jump in the lake? if she was in such a hurry to get the notes why would you feel the need to take off all your clothes? especially right in front of your employer? there were also some pretty random and pointless scenes of alan rickmans secretary taking off her clothes or walking around in lingeria. just, pointless stuff like this...i don't get it. and this movie is filled with them.
there is one very funny moment with Rowan Atkinson aka Mr. Bean who appears at the jewelry counter. but really, the film could have been so much better. i didn't even like the environments, besides the writers house, all the houses/buildings looked so sterile and white and soulless. i also found liam neesons son's behavior to be so unrealistic. no 7 year old acts like that, or talks like that. and neeson talks to his very young son like hes teenager, mentioning things like "haveing sex" and even saying "who is she, or HE.." i was like, what? why would you automatically assume your son is gay? just weird. i heard about this film 7 years ago but i could tell what kind of movie it was going to be. lo and behold, i was correct. now i know why i hadn't been in any rush to see it. same with king Kong. heard about, it was popular, but deep down i knew it would suck. and i was right. anyway, sad to see liam neeson in such rubbish, but hey every actor needs work right? cant always be in those deep human drama's or action blockbusters like schindlers list or star wars, unfortunately. but he is still good even in this cold turkey of a "love" movie. the days where you could go to a romance movie with a date or family are gone, as by "romance" they now mean "must be 18 years or older to attend this R rated sexual movie". very very sad. now i know why i don't go to the movies anymore, not only is there a lack of good action adventure films, but also decent romantic films. i think i'll just stick with watching TCM for my romance fix.
firstly, i just bought this on bluray last night and haven't seen this film in a very long time. but after seeing it after so many years in full, i must say its darker then i remembered it. the gizmo is cute in the beginning, and i half expected this movie to be not so dark because gizmo was so fluffy and cute. however once the other gremlins come it gets a bit dark. perhaps too dark. first thing that made me gasp in horror was when its implied the spike mogwi (not yet turned into a gremlin) tied up the dog outside with Christmas lights. that was just so wrong. i didn't find it funny, but i don't think it was supposed to be. I'm sure it was meant to show how bad and sadistic the gremlins can be, and it sure did, but as an owner of 4 lovable dogs and a big animal lover myself i found this part to be in bad taste. thankfully the dog wasn't hurt in the film or anything, but still, it looked painful and i felt very bad after seeing this, and i had to go hug my own dogs, lol. later in the film you see gremlins with GUNS trying to shoot people, injecting a needle into a teacher, scratching up a moms face while in a Christmas tree before trying to strangle her, nearly bulldozing a man to his death (thankfully later was confirmed that he survived that somehow). from memory, the gremlins of film 2 were not nearly as sadistic or murderous. sometimes scary or creepy but not like the first film where they were killers. anyone who says this is a "family" movie should be warned. its a strange movie to be sure, its got moments where the kids would definitely enjoy it (as i did when i was a child) and parts where adults are going to think "wow this is pretty twisted". phoebe Cate's character's speech about why she doesn't like Christmas was pretty bizarre as many have stated and just doesn't fit anywhere in the movie. maybe this was why they added it on there, the ridiculous randomness of it, but still, it would have been fine without it.
another thing that people don't seem to give credit for is jerry goldsmiths very memorable film score which really suits the movie and is both scary at times, and funny/silly at others, especially with his very funny, memorable "gremlins theme" tune. you can almost hear the gremlins singing along with it! overall, however, the creature gremlin effects are fantastic and very well done. it reminds us that CGI can never replace the pure magic and creepy realism of puppetry and animatronics that were so wonderful back in the day. this film also reminded me why so many of my favorite films are from the 80's. movies then seemed to have a childlike fun quality to them that seems lost in todays cinema. they were fun, over the top and magical, from the kid movies to the macho action flicks, 80's movies had that magic of cinema that todays films are sorely missing. the film's got plenty of scares and silliness, as well as some good suspense, to entertain just about anyone who likes movies. my only major criticism is that there are some moments that i think are just too dark for a movie like this. i actually prefer the sequel, where i think they got a good balance of silliness and creep out scenes, without being too serious or too dark. on the whole, the 2 gremlins films are very good scary fun movies but do be warned, the first film does get dark at times and may not be great for younger viewers. i wouldn't really call this a "family" film, more like a horror comedy.
firstly i am not a fan of the genre of "teen sex comedies". i perhaps wasn't informed about this movie, i thought it would be just a funny old school screwball comedy. boy was a wrong. i think its just the stupid perverted side of Hollywood. i feel bad that harold ramis aka Egon has anything to do with this crap, since i love most of the other films hes written or been attached too, especially ghostbusters. sure teens do think about sex because its a natural part of growing up and discovering your own sexuality, but wow i mean WOW they make having sex sound like its no big deal in these films! perhaps to these jaded filmmakers, but not to the whole country. and guess what, this film started it all. i guess thats why i decided to pick on this film instead of all the other gross out films that came after it. perhaps it was successful because there hadnt been many movies like this yet, and it was probably looked at as one of a kind (until now). this is like the granddaddy of sex comedies, or as i like to call, soft porn Hollywood style. from this one retarded brainless flick we got a whole 3 decades worth of similarly retarded brainless flicks like the American Pie movies, Fast time at Ridgmont High, Porky's, Revenge of the Nerds and the countless other asinine so-called "comedies" that were unleashed upon the public in its wake. first off there may be college ppl out there who love to party but this movie does things that i heavily doubt ever happen in real life. its too ridiculous. first off i hate college culture, heck i hate the whole school culture of today, which is why i was happy to finally get out of high school and simply take night classes to get my certification in nutritional health. i am still working towards that. college, as in regular living-in-dorms college, is overrated and ridiculous. you don't really learn anything and the kids are obnoxious. now you can see why i hate college. this movie just intensified that hatred. every minute of watching this dreck made me thankful that i decided not to go the typical college route and avoid people like this. i guess i shouldn't blame the movie SO much as it knew what it was trying to be, as vulgar and gross as it was. but if it was supposed to have a point other then being stupid, then it failed. Jim Belushi isn't funny. thats a fact. even in blues brothers, it was Dan akkroyd who was funny. not the fat one. no wonder he died. he probably couldn't handle the fact that people seemed to only think he was funny cuz he was fat. i wouldn't want to be him. same with Chris Farley. i would have given up all the fame and money and be fit and healthy (not to mention ALIVE) instead of be a fat tub of goop, trying your hardest to look ugly beyond all hell and made out to look like a retarded idiot in films. poor guys. i pity them. and its hard to watch there movies for that reason to, aside from the fact they are not funny but just gross.
in the end, this is a genre of movies that if wiped off the face of the earth in a big fire, the earth would benefit from it for we wouldn't have to see such useless pointless garbage ever again.
i know i may be in the minority for most but i thought GB 2 was not only funnier then the original, but scarier as well. bill Murray made me laugh so hard in this that my sides hurt. his lines are priceless. Egon, ray and Winston are all back as the ghost busting team and are all so likable and you just want to be there busting with them. they are definitely a great team and have great chemistry as one. this time they go up against viggo the Carpathian. or perhaps "HE IS Viggo!". he is the scariest villain the GB's go up against in the 2 films. nothing really scared me in the first film, except maybe slimer charging peter but even that was pretty tame. viggo is a truly scary villain, and that painting......wow. its the stuff nightmares are made of. i know that as a kid i had horrible ones of this guy. like they say, a movie is only as "good" as its villain, well that is true here, viggo is terrifying. and the slime also creep ed me out.
the yanoosh (sp?) character is hysterical and is played brilliantly. Egon is funnier this time around, and the "slime" is as much a villain as viggo the Carpathian. everybody came back for the sequel, even Louis Tully, Jeanine and Dana Barrett. the special effects are better this time around and the GB's got cool new tools like the slime blower. the movie is more family friendly which i LOVE because you can watch it with kids and it will scare them but also make them laugh a lot. the first movie had some scenes that i think are inappropriate for kids (ie. female ghost scene with ray) so this film was an improvement. proves you don't have to have bad language/sexual references in a film to be funny and entertaining! it was also scarier too, the subway scene comes to mind the most. scared me so much as a kid and still does if watched at night. viggo was a much cooler villain then gozer the gozarian or those terror dogs from the first one. both films are good but GB 2 was more my cup of tea. the one liners by Murray and co. are too much LOL. and ya gotta love Egon's tech-no-talk. i find myself chuckling when i think of the word "psychomagnatheric".
most comedies (or in this case, "action" comedy) don't have message of any kind, they are just pointless. but i noticed in GB 2 that the film seemed to have a message about negativity and what it does. the slime grew powerful because of all the hate and ugliness of the city ("new york, what a town") and it enabled viggo to gain power. the mayor saying it was every new yorkers right to be miserable is just the attitude that was empowering the evil slime/ghosts.
but in the end the city, with the help of the ghost busters, realized that hate and anger was actually helping the evil viggo to rule the world and started to sing and be happy and start giving off lots of positive good natured energy which actually helped the ghost busters a lot in defeating the evil viggo. i thought this was such a good message for both kids and adults alike. because there is so much hate and anger in the world, and this showed what positive goodness can do to stop evil and wickedness.great sequel and i can actually say, better then the original despite what the creators/GB 1 fan boys think.
i was looking forward to these 2 titles big-time to play on my xbox 360. i am an extreme GB's fan as well as a life long batman fan. however as cool and sleek as batman AA was, it did not match the pure ghost busting fun of GB: the video game. batman arkham asylum was good but very dark in some places. however it did remind me of what a batman movie should be: plenty of OTT action while still keeping the darkness and depth of Batman's world and his villains. the characters were still fantastical and wild and imaginative but in a kind of "realistic" way. i was one of those people who was disappointed with the direction of the newer batman films with Christian bale, with "the dark knight" being #1 on my "most overrated movie of all time" list. the game however reminded me of a kind of hybrid of what a movie would be like if you took Tim Burton's batman films and Chris Nolan's batman films, along with a bit of "batman: the animated series" and mashed them together. THIS would make an awesome movie because while it is more grounded ala nolan's flicks, it still retains the fantastical "comic booky" feel of the batman character and his world, which is sorely missed in the recent films. good game, if also too violent or "sick" in certain parts. looking forward to the sequel, but i can say I've played the ghost busters game many more times then batman AA. that game was just too much fun, i think batman AA could have lightened its tone up a bit and would have still been thoroughly enjoyable.