Marthian80

This movie is about an old Chinese man, named Quan Ngoc Minh (Jackie Chan), with a troubled past who is emotionally shattered after losing his daughter to terrorist bombings in London. Meanwhile, Irish Deputy Minister Liam Hennessy (Pierce Brosnan) founds out that the bombing was claimed by a group who calls themselves the Authentic IRA. Liam immediately goes to angrily confronts his subordinates over the bombing, demanding who was responsible for killing civilians. Quan, desperate to seek revenge, sees Liam on an interview on TV and decides to confront him. He goes to Belfast and manages to get a talk with Liam, demanding the names of the bombers. Liam says he doesn't know who they are and Quan is kicked out but not after he leaves a small bomb in the place... After this attack, Quan starts threatening Liam more and more to give him the names of the bombers. But Quan is not Liam's only problem because his hands are getting dirty with the recent bombings and his IRA past...

The best this movie has to offer are the two main stars. Jackie Chan is excellent as an older man with a troubled past. And he still can kick some butt to, even in his 60's! His switch from silent old man to guerrilla fighter was a bit sudden but well done. Pierce Brosman is also great as an ex-IRA member who's slowly drowning in the political problems and the new IRA that start to get out of control. The action scenes are few but when the action get's going it is great. There is also a lot of political thriller elements that are also well done, but now we also get in the problems I have with the movie.

My main issue is that it struggles with what it wants to be. On the one hand you have Jackie Chan's character seeking revenge and turning into a 'Rambo' character, including setting traps and fighting in the woods. And on the other hand you have Pierce Brosman's character up to his neck in a political swamp with lot's of backstabbing and shady business going on. The two stories and scenes (action vs. tense political drama) are so different that it feels like two different movies that clash with each other constantly. Add to that the weak supporting cast and the not so interesting story of Chan (we all have seen 'father-takes-revenge' stories, right?) and you have a movie that is a bit 'meh' at times. The constant switch from cool Jackie Chan action to intense political drama is a bit abrupt for me, making it difficult to follow at times.

It's not a bad movie and I recommend it if you like political thrillers, but don't go in expecting to see a 'standard' Jackie Chan beat 'm up flick.

Finally came around to watching the most popular movie about mr. Zuckerberg and the founding of his little website..

The film opens with Mark Zuckerberg (Jesse Eisenberg) at Harvard University in 2003. Mark was just dumped by his girlfriend Erica (Rooney Mara) for being a jerk. His reaction to this is to post insulting things about her on his blog while simultaneously hacking the University database to illegally download pictures of all the female members and drinking lots of beers. With the help of his best friend Eduardo Saverin (Andrew Garfield) he uses the downloaded pictures to create the website "Facemash" (which ranks two girls and the user picks the hottest), which is so popular that in a short time it crashes the whole University computer network. The University is not pleased but Mark's website did draw the attention of three Harvard upper-class members, Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss and their business partner Divya Narendra, who have an idea for a social network featuring exclusive Harvard members and aimed at dating. They ask if Mark likes to join their project as a programmer. Mark agrees to work on their project but then starts to create his own online social network called 'thefacebook', funded with the help of Eduardo and leaves the Narendra and the Winklevoss brothers in the dark of what he is really doing. When he launches thefacebook website it immediately becomes a success, which infuriates the Winklevoss brothers who blame him for stealing their idea. Things get more and more tense when thefacebook grows and Mark draws the attention of playboy and Napster founder Sean Parker (Justin Timberlake), who would like to work with him and make it a billion dollar project..

Overall this is a good movie; I really liked the chemistry between the main characters (Jesse Eisenberg and Andrew Garfield, who stole the movie for me) and it's story kept me watching even though you already know what happens (I guess everybody knows what Facebook is during this day and age). The supporting cast did a fine job as well and I was surprised by the performance of Justin Timberlake (or was he just acting as himself..? ). The message of the movie is clear (the young techs are coming!) and it leaves it to the viewer to make up your mind about Zuckerberg true intentions.

What bugged me the most in this movie is that they portrayed Zuckerberg as a lonely nerd and that he was still lovesick about some girl he dated years ago. The real Zuckerberg was in a relationship during the time this movie takes place and he married his girlfriend in 2012, which is a huge difference with the Zuckerberg we see in the movie. It's also interesting that they tell the story in a flashback style with the courtroom being the present time but it's sometime a little bit difficult to follow what event happened first. But despite this it's a fine movie with good acting, some comedy moments and an interesting story about how one of the biggest websites ever was founded.

Check out this film if you like dramas with some comedy elements and are interested in Zuckerbergs story and the rise of Facebook. But don't expect it to be 100% accurate. (as is usual in biography's)

I went in this movie thinking it would be a 'feel good' movie about a young drummer getting to make a career. This movie does tell that story, but there is not much to feel good about after the credits roll..

The movie is about Andrew Neimann (Miles Teller), a promising student on the drums at Shaffer Conservatory of Music, who wants to be as good as legendary drummer Buddy Rich. Andrew is currently drumming in one of the school bands but he wants to get a place in the schools studio band that is conducted by the most respected professor of the school: Terence Fletcher (J.K. Simmons). One day Fletcher suddenly storms in the room where Andrew is practicing with the band and after listening to (and insulting) each student briefly, he invites Andrew to come to his class. Andrew starts as an assistant drummer and quickly learns that Fletcher transforms into a drill sergeant from hell when conducting and the whole band is trembling in fear when he accuses one of the players being out of tune. However, when the band takes a break Fletcher does strike up a friendly conversation with Andrew talking about his family and gives him a chance to be core drummer. Andrew is made temporary core drummer after the break but when he struggles to keep up the tempo of the song "Whiplash", Flitcher hurls a chair at him, slaps him in the face and throws the details of his personal life back in his face as insults. Despite this abuse, Andrew still wants to be the best drummer of all time but will the ridiculous high standards and physical abuse of Fletcher be to much for him to handle?

This movie was exceptional since it tells a story we all have seen before (promising student climbing to the top) but without the typical feel good element usually found in these movies. Fletcher is an absolutely dis-likable figure who believes his harsh way of teaching is justified because it's the only way to find the next great jazz musician. That he destroys many good students careers (or even lives) in the process does not concern him at all, he cares only about meeting his ridiculous high standards. I felt sorry for Andrew in the beginning, he tries really hard, but Fletcher keeps pushing him further and further that I was hoping he would simply find another teacher. But he keeps destroying his own life, sacrificing everything to meet Fletchers demands and turn into a huge jerk who is so full of himself that he alienates everybody around him, including his other band members and his family.

The greatest thing about this movie is the exceptional great acting from J.K. Simons and Miles Teller. Simons plays an angry Fletcher so well that i felt uneasy myself when he is getting mad at Andrew because he plays 'out of tempo'. Teller also plays a great role, starting as a likable student and turning into a jerk with delusions of grandeur. And while I don't listen to Jazz, the music used in the music was really great. The only 'problem' of the movie was that after the first act, there were no likable characters! This made it both interesting and hard to watch, and kept me hoping for a happy end... It's hard to talk about the ending without spoiling but I will say that it can be viewed both as happy and not so happy. (if that does make any sense..)

Definitely a must see if you like movies with strong character performances and stories about people developing from student to "greatness".

I saw the trailer for this movie last summer and already know it didn't do well at both box-office results and critical acclaim but was still curious since I like fantasy / adventure movies.

The movie opens with a (totally unnecessary) montage of real space history followed by futuristic made-up history and then shows a bunch of grey happy bald-headed CGI aliens living happy lives on a tropical-beach like world, doing interesting things with pearls. The happy aliens are suddenly threatened by a space battle going on just above their planet. Some of them seek shelter in a giant transport ship crashing down but there are many causalities, including an happy alien girl who goes out in a bang. This 'bang' is felt by one of our two protagonists: Major Valerian (played by Dane DeHaan), who is one of the best and toughest secret agents of the universe. The other protagonist is Sergeant Lareline (Cara Delevingne) who assists Valerian on his secret missions. After an introduction mission to get a rare item, they are briefed to escort this item and Commander Arun Filitt (Clive Owen) to someplace else but before they can begin, the commander is abducted. Are Valerian and Lareline able to get the commander back? And why is the rare item so highly wanted?

First the positives: this movie looks gorgeous! They did a great job in visualizing different worlds and environments, there were several scenes where they had me glued to the screen and make me want to buy a 3-D T.V. The action scenes are well done and everything is there you expect from movies like these: chase scenes with space ships, chase scenes without space ships, hand to hand combat, shootouts in busy streets, cool weapons and technology, strange creatures, etc. The story is simple and comparable with Fifth Element and Avatar but it's enough to keep it entertaining.

Unfortunately, the simple story makes everything between the action scenes mediocre at best and horrible at worst. I don't think Dane DeHaan is a bad actor, but he is no action movie actor. He is supposed to be a bad-ass agent, feared by galactic criminals but he looks more like the average guy who tests the computer systems. (and why does he want to sound like Keanu Reeves?) I liked Cara Delevingne much better and her scenes without Dane are my favorites of the movie. Her scenes WITH Dane DeHaan when there is no action are the worst of the entire movie. (well apart from Rihanna's stupid inclusion, why do they keep offering her roles? SHE. CANNOT. ACT!) There is absolutely no synergy between Valerian and Lareline whatsoever. We are supposed to believe there is a romance brewing between the two but they might as well have Lareline start something with the smuggler guy from the first act because she showed the same affection for him.

Overall, it could have been a great sci-fi adventure movie if they hired actors who fitted their roles better and had more chemistry between them and perhaps a more surprising plot rather then spending the whole budget on special effects. It's watchable for the visuals and action but be prepared for some horrible acting.

I was curious about this movie because it's one of the more "recent" Vietnam movies so I wanted to see if it brought anything new to the table that the classic movies did not.

The movie opens with a French patrol in Vietnam in 1954, the final year of the First Indochina war. The French patrol is overrun by the Viet Minh forces and the commander order to "kill all they send, and they will stop coming". We fast forward 11 years when the United States is fighting the Vietnam War. Lieutenant Colonel Hal Moore (Mel Gibson) arrives with his family and is very dedicated to training his troops in preparation to be sent to battle. He will be leading a newly created air cavalry unit (flying troops and supplies in with helicopters) into the Ia Drang Valley. Moore only has 395 men at his disposal and soon learn that the enemy has much more men. Vastly outnumbered, will the astounding leadership qualities and stubborn determination of Moore be enough to survive the coming onslaught?

Overall I enjoyed this movie, but not tremendously. The war action was very good, the acting and portrayal of the characters was decent and at times it gave me the feeling of being in the heat of the battle. But it started really slow, the first 40 minutes were not very interesting and although it did setup some story arcs, overall it could be much shorter or be made more exciting. In my opinion they tried to hard with focusing on the families of the soldiers. I understand that they wanted to show how the women left behind would react to the bad news but it didn't work for me, I think they should have stayed with the battle the whole movie.

And where most classic Vietnam movies focus on the insanity of war and the dehumanization, this movie sometimes looks like a commercial to join the army. There were a bit to many "I'm glad I died for my country" moments and it lacked emotional torment of the characters. On the other hand they did a fine job showing the Vietnam troops as real people and not as nameless monsters.

Overall it is a decent movie but it doesn't do anything new and doesn't hold a candle to the classic Vietnam movies like Apocalypse Now, Platoon and Full Metal Jacket.

I enjoy most of the Marvel MCU and was interested what they would do with Spider-Man after he showed up briefly in Civil War. The previous Spider-man movies were 'okay' for me (or even awful), so it could only get better!

The movie starts with showing the aftermath of the 'Battle for New York' that was the epic final of the first Avenger movie. We meet salvage worker Adrian Toomes (Michael Keaton) who leads a team to take apart the alien invaders machinery. After some experiments, Adrian and hit teams learns how to create powerful weapons from the alien wreckage to sell to criminals. But shortly after this discovery, his team is shutdown and the salvage is taken over by a company hired by Tony Stark. We then fast forward 8 years in time were we see the videos Peter Parker made on his trip to Berlin to help Iron Man fight off Captain America. We learn that after Berlin, Peter was allowed to keep the suit which he puts on every day after school to fight (light) crime in New York. He desperately wants to fight with the other Avengers and spams the phone of Happy (Tony Stark's assistant) everyday, but he hears nothing in response. When Peter gets in contact with criminals that bought the alien weapons from 'the Vulture' Adrian Toomes, things start to get more interesting for Peter. But will he be able to stop the Vulture without messing up his high school life to much? And is he truly ready to become part of the Avengers?

I really enjoyed this interpretation of Spider-Man, it was light with a lot of humor and good action sequences. I liked that the whole 'origin story' was skipped because we have seen that two times already, it just focuses on how Peter deals with combining high-school and his aspirations to become a super hero. In my opinion Tom Holland is a much better choice for Spider-Man then Toby McQuire or Andrew Garfield. Toby looked like a whiny little kid to me and Andrew is a way to serious actor to play in a comic-book movie. Tom fits this role as a glove, both his portrayal of Spider-Man and Peter Parker are excellent. Michael Keaton is also excellent in his role as the Vulture villain. Unlike other villains in Marvel movies, he's not pure evil for evil's sake but is just a guy that wants to make loads of money. Robert Downey Jr. is always a pleasure to see on screen and this movie is no exception.

Another good thing this movie does is how it ties in with the MCU. They did a good job in this movie by not involving the whole superhero but keeping the focus on Spider-Man. Also cool to see how high school people live in a world where the Avengers actually do exist. (the Captain America instructional videos are hilarious) There is however a little bit to much high school stuff in it for my taste. Showing Peter asking a girl out for the big dance and showing him in school doing high school things could have left out or toned down a bit. The actors playing the 'high school cast' are mediocre and do not really feel like real people to me.

But the main focus of the movie is still action oriented with amazing effects. Like all Marvel movies it gets a bit CGI heavy and Spider-Man looks a bit to much like a computer game character but overall it's very well done. The movie never bogs down and there are a few surprises to that I didn't see coming.

Spider-Man: Homecoming is another nice addition to the MCU with lots of humor and some good action scenes. It's not the greatest coming book movie but definitely worth checking out.

I'm a fan of the 'Cornetto trilogy' so i was exited to see what Edgar Wright would do with his first American movie. It apparently has a lot of music in it so that should be a good start!

The movie opens with three gangsters and a getaway driver about to do an armed robbery in Atlanta, Georgia. The young getaway driver employed by the gangsters boss is named 'Baby' (Ansel Elgort), who suffers from tinnitus but listens to his Ipod all day to block it out. With the right track playing, Baby is able to perform amazing driving skills. The gangsters successfully escape the police, thanks to Baby and they meet up with the boss, named Doc (played by Kevin Spacey) to distribute the loot. Apparently Baby is not really working for Doc , he's actually paying of a debt because he tried to steal a car from Doc in the past. But Baby has almost paid off the debt with Doc and he meets a lovely girl named Debora (Lily James) so things are starting to get better for him. But on his last job he has to work with a very dangerous gangster named Bats (Jamie Foxx) who really dislikes Baby. On top of that Doc forces Baby to continue to work for him, threatening to hurt Debora if Baby refuses. So far his love for music kept Baby going but now that his new love interest is threatened, the gangsters get more dangerous, will he still get through it all?

Overall this was a very entertaining movie, the action is fast paced and exciting, the car chase scenes are sublime and the acting is decent. Some characters are a little over the top. Jamie Foxx goes a bit overboard playing a dark gangster and Jon Hamm, who plays a more relaxes gangster, get's a bit 'larger then life' later on in the movie. I liked the performance of the young cast, Ansel Elgort and Lily James. I was not a fan of Ansel's previous work but I think he's getting better. Sadly his character is the only one given a decent background but it's done well, especially how they use music to describe his moods.

The movie is not without problems though. The romance between Baby and Debora is a bit forced and feels like it came out of a fairy tale. But perhaps this was intended? And it suffers from the usual action movie tropes like people treating point blank shot-wounds like it's noting but a scratch, the police is nowhere to be seen and some characters are just evil for evil's sake. (I just want to make lot's of money and that's all!) I expected more jokes in this movie as well and felt the movie could use it, but perhaps Wright didn't want to make another 'cornetto' style movie.

The best part of the movie is the amazing soundtrack. Every track feels like it belongs there and it brings the movie to a higher level, especially during the car chase scenes.

Baby Driver is a very entertaining movie with an excellent soundtrack. Worthy of watching for the soundtrack alone, especially if you like car chases.

I thought we had hit rock bottom with Batman & Robin in '97 regarding comic-book movie adaptions, but then I discovered this amazing production that takes it even further, oh boy..

The story starts with our main action hero John Henry Irons (played by professional basketball player Shaquille O'Neal) who is in the army creating and testing new super-weapons. One soldier named Nathaniel Burke (Judd Nelson) for some reason decides to set a weapon to maximum when John's team is testing a new sonic gun, which blows up the building the team is in. The building collapses which cripples John's partner Susan "Sparky" Sparks (Annabeth Gish). John doesn't like that and leaves the army as does Burke who is dismissed from the military for doing stupid things like blowing up buildings he is standing in... While John goes back to LA and takes a shot at a three-pointer (which he misses, isn't that hilarious?!? An actor who is a professional basketball player misses a shot? Well wait till you see the other basketball jokes...!), the evil Burke teams up with a video arcade manager (???) to hatch a plot to sell the not-so-secret high-tech weapons to criminal gangs. John witnesses a bank robbery organized by over the top acting gangsters wielding the high-tech weapons he helped designing. Because he is unarmed, he decides to chase one gang member armed with a high tech gun who makes a run for it, because you don't just shoot down John! After going unarmed to the not-so-secret hide- out of the over the top acting gangsters and not getting any information, John decides that enough is enough. He goes to get Sparky Susan, who is very depressed being wheelchair-bound but is instantly happy by just opening some windows, get's her to work for him and with the help of Uncle Joe (?? who?), in-explainable technology and some lame 80's music he forges a suit of armor and bring Justice to the city, HA!

Let me start that there is absolutely nothing in this movie that can be defined as "good". The acting is extremely bad, not only is our main hero a lame actor but the rest of the cast is also not really going for any awards here. The special effects look awful, those super-weapon look like cheap firework and the Steel suit is comparable to what you could wear to a larp event. How the suit operates is never explained, magic I guess? Shaquille also looks really silly in this costume, I almost fell off my couch from laughter when he waves his finger at the gangsters when they try to shoot him. The plot is behind stupid as well and it makes no sense whatsoever. The main villain want to lease weapons because he is the only one where they can charge up the guns? Why don't they just shoot him and take the guns for free?

You can ask yourself that question a thousand time during this movie: "why don't just shoot him/her!?". Especially when John goes chasing an armed gangster unarmed and when Sparky Susan fires off her wheelchair guns... Oh my goodness that was another moment when I couldn't stop laughing. I never laugh at people in wheelchairs but this looked so ridiculous that I just couldn't help myself. Ow and don't get me started on the basketball puns, I completely lost it and had tears in my eyes from laughter during the final act when he has to throw a grenade trough a hole. "I never make these!". Ow make it stop!

Steel is an awful movie but it's so bad that you should watch it for the laughs. If they hired some comedy actors and marketed this as a parody, it could have worked though.

I didn't know much about this movie but I like both Samuel L Jackson and Ryan Reynolds plus lots of it is shot in my country so I was mildly curious.

The story starts with the character of Michael Bryce (Ryan Reynolds), who is a triple-A executive protection agent and busy delivering a Japanese client to the airport. However, Michael is not a triple-A agent for long as the deliverance of his client ends in disaster. Two years later, he is reduced to a second-class bodyguard, trying to make a living and still unhappy about the incident which cost him his status. His life will soon start to get much more excited when his ex-girlfriend Amelia (Elodie Yung) gives him his next job: take the extremely dangerous professional hit-man Darias Kincaid(Samuel L Jackson) from Manchester to the Hague in the Netherlands. Kincaid has to testify against a Belorussian dictator because he is the only one that can provide hard evidence to lock this man behind bars. Michael agrees, but soon founds out that transporting a professional hit-man who is hunted by lots of angry Belorussians is not an easy task.

This is a very entertaining action movie with loads of comedy moments thrown in. Off course there are many "buddy" movies like these but when the main character have lot's of chemistry together, they can really work. And with Jackson and Reynolds that is definitely the case! They obviously had a lot of fun together and there are some very good jokes that made me laugh out loud. The background for both characters is also nicely done and they develop a relationship throughout the movie. Gary Oldmen does his best to try to play an evil dictator but because he's in court and in prison most of the time, it doesn't really work. The supporting characters and the other villains are not much more then plot devices and dudes for Jackson and Reynolds to kill, but sometimes that's all you need to make a fast paced action movie.

What does work is the excellent stunt-work and fight scenes. There are some terrific car chases, great shoot outs and exciting fist fights. Almost every kind of vehicle is used in this movie to make a chase in, even boats. The Dutch cities look very cool in this movie as a setting, we should do this more often.. ;) You shouldn't expect much realism in a movie like this and the plot is very simple, it reminds me of the 80's action movies, but when you look past that, your in for a lot of fun.

I recommend watching this when your in the mood of a fast paced action movie that simply delivers.

I like to watch comicbook movies, even the ones that were not very well received, and now it's time for this flick about the cousin of the Man of Steel.

Supergirl starts with showing a space city which happens to be an isolated Kryptorian community in a pocket of trans-dimensional space(?? I just quote this stuff from the internet, it's not explained in the movie what trans-dimensional space is...). Some wizard dude called Zaltar (Peter O'Toole) shows Kara Zor- El/Supergirl (Helen Slater) a baseball-sized object known as the Omegahedron which powers the city but can also be used to make cheap looking jewelry or big butterflies (??). Kara Zor-El creates a big butterfly, which promptly flies out of the plastic sheet(?!) covered window causing the Omegahedron getting sucked out into space and flying straight to earth, landing in the thee of a woman known as Selena (Faye Dunaway), who immediately recognizes it as a valuable artifact.. The Kryptorians are a little angry with their power source flying out of the window and they blame Zaltar who takes full responsibility and goes to live in the phantom zone. However, Klara jumps in a "space ships" (space egg would be a better description) and flies to Earth to get the power source back. She lands on Earth as Supergirl; having the power to fly, great strength, laser-beam eyes and frost breath. But instead of using those powers to get the stone back, she decides it's better to dress up as a schoolgirl, make friends with other schoolgirls and doing schoolgirly things because that's obviously the right thing to do... The Kryptorian city could only last two "days" (Earth days?) so hopefully the schoolgirl approach will make sure Supergirl get's the stone back in time!

Now I have seen some bad movies before but I think this is one of the worst ever for me. The only thing that was decent where some of the action scenes and some set pieces. The rest was just awful! The acting and the way that lines are delivered here is below the level of porn parodies. It looks like everything was just shot in one take after the actors remembered their lines. And yeah this movie is from the 80's so special effects where not what they are today but compared to the effects in the original superman (which came out 7 years earlier) this looks like stuff thrown together on a Sunday afternoon. The worst fake flying scenes ever are shown here.

There is also nothing explained who Supergirl is and how she survived the destruction of Krypton? And who is this Zaltar guy? It's also not clear what the villain character wants, other then some big muscled guy who she has the hots for. Lex Luther in the original Superman wanted to blow up California, that sound more like a comicbook villain then some woman seducing a attractive guy. And the only reason she battles Supergirl is because she also likes the big muscled guy? Really?

And don't get me started on the "join the schoolgirls!" part of the movie. My goodness, it felt like watching a parody of "Porky's Revenge" or some other B-class 80's comedy. Who thought that watching "Linda Kent's first day at high school!" made great stuff for a comic-book movie? This should be about superheroes not some dumb teenage crap. And when Supergirl finally could actually use her powers for the good, she just stands there in her schoolgirl uniform watching the town getting destroyed! And when she finally decides to do something she only saves the hot guy and nothing else! Worst. Superhero. Ever.

I don't know if there is a Supergirl porn parody movie but I think it has better acting, plot and special effects then this piece of utter garbage. This is the first time that I regret watching a movie and feel sorry for myself to waste two hours. I recommend you clean your house, go help your neighbors with something or watch paint dry instead of watching this.

A movie about illusionists pulling of bank heists during their performances, well that could be interesting! And with such a big cast it's bound to be good right?

Now you see me starts with introducing four street performers (Jesse Eisenberg, Woody Harrelson, Dave Franco and Isla Fisher) doing cheap magic tricks in front of an audience to earn money. They all get summoned to an apartment in New York by someone in the form of tarot cards. After they get together we suddenly jump to Las Vagas one year later were the four of them (now called "the Four Horsemen") perform a big show on stage. During the show they rob a bank in Paris by randomly picking a Frenshman from the audience and 'teleporting' him to the vault of said bank. Robbing banks during magic shows draws attention from several big people, including the world famous Thaddeus Bradley (Morgan Freeman) who debunks magic tricks and insurance magnate Arthur Tressler (Michael Caine) who sponsors them. To investigate the theft FBI agent Dylan Rhodes (Mark Ruffalo) is given the case and is teamed up with Interpol Agent Alma Dray (Mélanie Laurent). During questioning the four horsemen, they react incredibly arrogant and claim that they will always be two steps ahead of the FBI. Because they have no proof they have to let them go, but will Dylan with the help of Thaddeus Bradley and the lovely Alma Dray be able to stop them before they pull of more heists?

I have to admit I'm not the biggest fan of heist movies but with well crafted characters, exciting action and a solid plot with believable twists it's possible to make a good movie. Unfortunately, apart from some good action scenes, this heist movie falls flat very quickly. Lets start with the characters: they are all very hollow, very little background is given for the four horsemen and they act so annoyingly arrogant (for unknown reason) that I started to hate them very quickly and was hoping for a scene where they get punched in the face. There is no motivation given for their actions and they can all unbelievably easily break into banks, FBI phones, steal top secret data and what not that I assume they just have superpowers! For example, the fight scene between Dave Franco and Mark Ruffalo had me believing he was the X- Men mutant Gambit, how else could he fight like that being just a stage artist? And normally I like to see Freeman and Caine in movies but here there characters are given so little that they seemed lost and just reading there lines. I only liked Mark Ruffalo but his character was given proper motivation (catch the thieves) and he acted like it.

A good plot is what usually drives these movies but after the credits rolled I discovered that there simply was no plot here. No reason is given why the heists are done and there is no character development or chemistry going on. Yes there are surprises and 'big reveals' but they are so far fetched and rely on unbelievable 'one in a million' shots that I started to feel insulted. No I didn't see it coming but if you give your street artists super powers instead of using skillful misdirection in your movie, you can pull of everything and just force me to roll with it right?

I also think the movie was given more money then they needed with all those ridiculous special effects and over the top sound editing. The sound effects used here made it feel like your watching the Rohan army charging down on the Pelenor fields but on screen you just see two people doing a 'make the rabbit disappear in a box' trick. Was there money left over or something? Added to the super sounds is the annoying moving shots and shaky cam, it made me feel dizzy at times. I think those moving shots were used in abandon to cover up the fact that there is nothing to see in this hollow movie.

I really disliked this movie and felt insulted by assuming I would swallow all the ridiculous things happening on screen and not questioning anything. I think it had worked better by just saying the magicians where REAL magicians who can do as they please. Or if they said "FOOLED YOU!" in big letters before the credits rolled. Maybe if you don't mind lack of intelligence in a movie and just want to see some cool effects you might enjoy it. But there are a million other movies that have that so I see no reason to watch this one.

This version of King Kong starts in 1944 with an American and Japanese soldier crashing their planes on an unknown island. They chase each other through the jungle until they come to a cliff. The Japanese soldier is close to killing the American when suddenly two gigantic ape hands appear: hello Kong! The fate of the two soldiers is unknown when we jump to 1973 where we meet Bill Randa (John Goodman) and his colleague in Washington D.C. They are scientist who want funding for an expedition to a recently discovered location called Skull Island. They get the funding and an military escort, made up of Vietnam veterans who are called the Sky Devils squadron. The leader of the Sky Devils, Colonel Preston Packard (Samual L Jackson) is reluctant to return to civil life after Vietnam so he gladly accepts the job. Also joining the expedition is a former S.A.S. Captain named James Conrad (Tom Hiddleston) and photographer Mason (Brie Larson). When the team arrives at Skull Island the plan from the scientists is to drop bombs from choppers in order to measure the ground reaction (or something like that). The whole team (about 30-40 people) gets on the choppers and after a rough flight through thick storm clouds they arrive at the island. All goes well but after dropping the first bombs the team is met by something that doesn't like bombs: the giant ape Kong and he is angry. Kong easily takes out the choppers and half the team is killed as a result. The surviving members are divided and have some new goals: get off the island and/or kill the giant ape.

While not bad this movie was very mediocre for me. It looks gorgeous, there are some tense moments and when Kong is on screen beating stuff up it's entertaining. The back story is very basic but I wasn't expecting much so that's okay. What was truly bad in this movie is the incredibly blend characters: they could all be replaced with cardboard boards without changing the end product. Nobody was given any background whatsoever, there was no chemistry between anyone and most where just there for Kong or the other monsters to play around with. It's a shame because they had some talented people here, but even the best actors can only do so much with so little. Take Tom Hiddleston who played the SAS captain for instance: we get one very short introduction scene of him and that's it! How can I root for a guy when there is so little shown of who he is and what his motivation is?

The only character with proper motivation is Samual L Jackson but that get's to the point of ridiculous very quickly. It's getting a little better when Jonh C. Reilly shows up because his character is at least given more then one line of background and there are some jokes thrown around. But he is just mainly there to explain the background story for the audience, it almost feel like they pause the film and show a power point presentation. ("here is what you need to know, please wait for question at the end!") They even had cave drawings to explain stuff.

The special effects look cool though and the fight scenes between Kong and the other big monsters are awesome. But that is just 10 minutes out of two hours of boring characters. The plot is incredibly predictable, there are zero surprises found here. They also try a little to hard to force a 70's feel with all the classic rock songs played, but I let that slide as they were good songs. If they had used less characters, gave them more material to work with and went more for a serious survival story I think it might have worked a lot better than just putting loads of characters in it and try to copy a Marvel movie.

If your bored, don't care about wooden characters and just want to see a big ape beat stuff up then this will probably entertain you. If you like good characters in a monster movie with a plot that has some unexpected twists then look elsewhere, you don't find that here.

I missed out on this movie back when it came out and finally got the chance to watch it. It is loosely based on real events about the samurai and Japanese history which sound interesting to me, but how does that combine with Tom Cruise?

The film opens in San Francisco in the summer of 1876. Ex-United States Army captain Nathan Algren (Tom Cruise) is having troubles dealing with his military past: he drinks a lot and has nightmares of the horrors he has seen, especially the battles against the native Americans. His former commanding officer Colonel Bagley (Tony Goldwyn) offers him a job in Japan: train the new imperial Japanese army to strike down the samurai rebellion who are opposing the new western-style changes to Japanese civil life. Although Algren hates Bagley he accepts the job and travels to Japan. He starts training the soldiers but they are very inexperienced and can't hit anything with they're firearms. Despite not being ready for battle, Bagley orders an attack on the samurai. In the battle that follows, the heavily experienced samurai easily overwhelm the soldiers who flee the battlefield in terror. Captain Angler is left alone but to his own surprise he is not killed, the samurai leader Katsumoto (Ken Watanabe) spares his life and he is taken with the samurai into the mountains. Once he is nursed back to health, he learns to know and respect the old Japanese way and develops a friendship with Katsumoto. Soon Algren begins to doubt where his loyalty truly lies.

I really enjoyed this movie, all the actors did a good job (especially Tom Cruise and Ken Watanabe), it looks gorgeous and the story keeps you glued to the screen for two and a half hours. Everything looks authentic and it really feels like you are in a different time era. I also like that there is actually Japanese spoken in this movie, this makes it all feel more real. One of the best things in this film is the chemistry between Cruise and Watanabe, it really made me feel like two completely different people who slowly develop a friendship. Cruise also did a good job acting out the transition of a man who doesn't care about anything first and then becoming more and more attached to the old Japanese way of life.

The only thing that troubled me is that it got a little bit to dramatic at the ending for my taste. It felt to me that they were pushing "the message" a little bit to hard. But fortunately they did not make the imperial army that fought against the samurai look like inhuman monsters (like 'the Patriot' did with the English) but just people that did as ordered and thought was best. Perhaps the move could use a little bit more action, but on the other hand they needed to take the time to show the way the samurai lived which was important for the story so it's all good in the end.

The Last Samurai is an excellent historical war movie that teaches you many things about the history of Japan, has lots of beautiful scenery pictures and has some very good battle scenes as well.

I didn't think much of the first two Expendable movies but I was curious how the next installment of this movie would turn out. The 'PG-13' rating worried me but the addition of Wesley Snipes, Antonio Banderas and Harrison Ford to the team might make up for it.. right?

In the opening scene of The Expendables 3 we see the old team (Stallone -> Barney, Lundgren -> Gunner, Statham -> Christmass, Couture -> Road and Crews -> Caesar) on a missions to rescue Doc (Snipes) from a train. Doc is happy to go home but learns from Barney that they're underway to another mission and just needed one more man for the job. Doc agrees however, and the team goes to Somalia to stop an arms dealer unloading some bombs. While the mission goes more or less to plan, Barney is shocked to see that the arms dealer is none other then Stonebanks (Mel Gibson) who he believed was dead. He opens fire on him and jeopardize the mission, forcing the team to withdraw. Stonebanks escapes in a helicopter and has the ability to take the whole team out with a rifle, but decides to only wound Ceasar and then drop a bomb on them which does no damage because they all jump in a river. Back home, a man known as Drummer (Ford), who has taken over from Church, and Trench (Schwarzenegger) push Barney to go back and take Stonebanks out. Barney doesn't want more of his friends to get hurt so he leaves them to go and meet Frasi.., I mean Bonaparte (Grammer) to find fresh blood (and Antonio Banderas) to get killed instead of his old buddies. But will the youngsters be tough enough to take Stonebanks down?

While I thought that the second installment was getting better, the third one is a let down again. I don't mind the ridiculous over the top action that this movie is filled with and I like Gibson here, he actually plays a decent villain. There is also no shaky cam which is an improvement in my book. But where it goes wrong is the forced editing to make it PG-13. With so many knife fights, explosions, people flying around and gunfights, it takes a gazillion amount of fast cutting and patching to keep the violence down. And the movie suffers heavily from it, some action scenes are so badly cut it makes my eyes hurt!

The other major downside is the inclusion of some random selection of young actors (I have never heard from) who are going to be the "new" team? Who thought that was a good idea? And who wanted to see the 'drama' happening when the old guys meet the young guys? I assumed that everyone who watches these movies want to see the old action heroes kicking ass, not some random kids riding around on motorcycles and hacking into security systems... The 'new' old members are decent though, but I'm not sure if Banderas character was a bit to much. The parody part of the movies is getting old as well, hearing Arny saying 'choppa' so often is getting old fast..

The Expendables 3 has some decent action scenes and a good villain character but overall it suffers from the forced PG-13 rating and the inclusion of some random young actors that nobody wants to see.

Wonder woman starts with showing where wonder woman (aka Diana Prince) came from: the amazons who live on the island Themyscira. The island is somewhere near Greece but hidden from view by a strange fog for normal people. We follow how Diana grows up to become one of the greatest amazon to have ever lived. On the day of her final training something strange happens: a German plane from the first world war breaks through the fog surrounding Themyscira and crashes into the sea. Diana rescues the man (Steve, a British spy played by Chris Pine) inside the plane, but he is pursued by German soldiers who also break through the fog. The Germans are quickly defeated by the mighty amazon warriors and learn from Steve that the whole world is currently fighting a great war. Diana thinks it must be the work of Ares, the god of war and that it is time to wield the god killer sword to put an end to Ares once and for all. Together with Steve and his friends she leaves the island of Themyscira to go to horrific front of the first world war, trying to find and defeat Aris.

I went into this movie a bit skeptical, because I wasn't impressed by Batman VS Superman where (the modern version) Wonder Woman made her entrance. But the character is interesting so I was curious how her origin story panned out. The start of the movie was a bit to serious/high fantasy for me but once Chris Pine enters the picture, it get's a lot lighter in tone and I started to like it a lot more. I really like Pine in The scenes where Diana enters London and get's in contact with 1910's civilization are hilarious and Gal Gadot does a fine job playing someone who's from a different world. I also liked the supporting cast who play Steve's friends, lot's of humor in those scenes.

The action scenes where mostly very well done. Cool slow motion effects and very good stunt work. My only gripe was that the CGI doubles of wonder woman and her opponents where a bit to obvious in a few scenes. And like in many comic book movies, this movie also suffered from a bad guy that was not impressive at all. The final confrontation was a bit to predictable and way to much CGI effects for my taste. But there was an emotional touch in the ending which was well done and unexpected.

Wonder woman is an enjoyable action movie with great action scenes and some good laughs. Recommended if your in for an entertaining action movie with some fantasy elements.

American Psycho's story is about a young banker named Patrick Bateman (Christian Bale) who at age 27 has it all: a high position in his dad's company, a very expensive apartment in the heart of New York City, he's very handsome, is engaged to a beautiful woman (with a few girls on the side..) and he likes to kill random people because he likes it... Yes our Patrick is actually very unhappy about his life and claims he doesn't feel empathy or love at all. He's so out of touch with humanity that several people mistake him for someone else, even people he knows for years. His only escape out of his life of wealth and power are his fantasies of sex and violence and acting out on it. But how long can he go on without people suspecting something? Or is everyone so busy with boosting their own ego's that they fail to notice that there is a psycho in their midst?

This movie does a good job in displaying how a mind as twisted as Patrick Bateman works and how he is on a downward spiral as the lines between his violent dreams and reality get more and more blurry. I was impressed with Bale's performance, especially the scene where he breaks down and calls his lawyer and when he is going full blown crazy running around with a chainsaw. The rest of the cast also does a fine job in portraying the rich snobs and dumb girls that circle around Bateman. The only voice of reason and the only person who shows empathy is Bateman's secretary (excellent performance by Chloe Sevigny), I really liked her role in the movie.

The movie started a bit slow though, the first 45 minutes could be chopped in half because some parts don't add much and are a bit dragged out. It also didn't feel like the 1980's, I was often wondering what the time period was supposed to be, despite the excellent 80's soundtrack. And I couldn't help but compare this movie with another story about a psychopath: Clockwork Orange, one of my favorite movies of all time. But I guess it takes a movie maker like Kubrick to really show how the mind of a psycho works. But like clockwork orange, this movie ending get's you thinking. It leaves it up to the viewer how to interpret-ate the events that happened.

So all in all a good movie with a great performance of Christian Bale. Definitely check it out if you like movies about crazy people and don't mind a few violent/sexual scenes.

I saw The Expendables 2 a few years ago and find it an amusing but average (5/10) action movie. I got the chance to see the first one yesterday so I thought 'why not?' and expected it to be better... but that was not the case.

The movie starts with some terrorists on a boat having a bunch of hostages and demanding money. Just when they want to start hurting the hostages, The Expendables show up killing all the terrorists and (miraculously) saving all the hostages. After this opening we meet the Expendable team in person, with the characters Barney Ross(Stallone) and Lee Christmas(Statham) being the main heroes. Stallone receives a new assignment from a man known as Church: assassinate a ruthless dictator of a South American island. Barney and Lee go together to investigate the island and with the help of the attractive rebel leader Sandra they discover the true nature of the conflict. Barney has to make the difficult choice now to just do his job or to follow his heart and help Sandra.

Okay I know this movie is a homage to 80's action movies but the 'story' feels a bit to much like a 1-on-1 copy of Commando and I couldn't care less about the fate of the island people. In this day and age they could do a better job portraying terrorist other then letting some dudes run around with guns and letting them speak in a foreign language. The scenes where they show the 'bad guys' doing 'bad things' where very boring. Also, the acting of the "rebel leader" Sandra was horrible and she didn't come over as an leader at all, just a damsel in distress. But yeah, they wanted to go for that 80's action movie feel where everything meaningful is accomplished by big strong men.

There are lot's of big strong man in this movie, alongside Statham and Stallone. They are all standard stereo-type ex-something, exactly like the team from other action movies like Predator for example. The chemistry between the actors is decent and there are some good jokes thrown around. Statham and Stallone together works and the dialogue is not bad. I fail to see beyond the actors though, but I guess that doesn't matter with a movie like this.

My biggest disappointment are the action scenes: to much shaky cam and to much quick cuts. There is a car chase in the movie but it is so horrible cut that you cannot follow what exactly is going on at any point. And yeah, I understand that they go for that 80's feel where a couple of guys can wipe out an entire army but they push the boundaries of 'believable action' a bit to far here. (bottomless magazines, the heroes don't get hit when 40 guys fire upon them, huge explosions without any hero getting hurt, etc...)

So for me a disappointing 4 out of 10. It is watchable if your home alone and like to see some mindless action, but I think your better of firing up and old 80's action classic.

Hacksaw Ridge tells the real-life story of Desmond Doss (played by Andrew Garfield), an WWII American Army medic who fought in the pacific theater and showed exceptional courage during the Battle of Okinawa.

The movie starts with a brief re-telling of Desmond's childhood, coming of age and his decision to join the army as a combat medic, despite his father (excellent role of Hugo Weaving) pleading not to go. However, due to his past Desmond has become a very religious person and his believes conflict with the army's view that every soldier, including medics, are able to handle a rifle and not hesitate to kill in combat. Desmond refuses to even touch a rifle and the army want's to get rid of him, but Desmond is determined to finish his training. He eventually ends up in the battle of Okinawa where his incredible courage saves many soldiers lives, without him ever firing a single shot.

Hacksaw Ridge is a well made movie which looks and sounds like a war movie is supposed to. The actors pulled off great performances to play believable characters, especially Andrew Garfield and Hugo Weaving. The other soldiers where not given much depth which was a bit of a pity, but it is Desmond's story so I understand the decision to keep the focus on the main protagonist.

What I didn't like about this movie is Mel Gibson's obsession with blood and gore in combination with sensational over-the-top shots. Yes we all know that war is hell but does it have to be shown with soldiers getting blown to bits in slow-motion? And showing horrific wounds a few times is enough, doing it constantly makes it almost feel like I'm watching splatter horror. A more 'subtle' showing of war-violence like for example, Saving Private Ryan would have been much better. But the battle scenes are still well made and well acted, I just wished Gibson made them a bit less spectacular and melodramatic.

So overall a solid WWII movie with an interesting real-life story that you should check out if your interested in a bit of history. But be noted that parts of it are very bloody.

Predestination opens with a man trying to disarm a bomb, which fails because the bomber is still there and he disables him. He does however successfully contain the bomb explosion but his face gets burned off. Shortly after these events we learn that this man is an agent for a mysterious organization that solves crime by catching the criminals before the deeds are happening, using time travel. After his face got burned, he returned to his own time and is given a new face using plastic surgery. He is then given his last assignment for the organization: catch the infamous "Fizzle Bomber". For this he has to go to 1978 New York and work as a bartender, which goes well until a particular customer shows up who starts sharing his life story with the bartender. This extraordinary life story starts a chain of events that gets weirder and more complex the longer it goes on.

I have seen several time travel movies at this point but this is the first one that blew my mind on several occasions. The paradox created in this one is very well done and leaves you pondering for several days. Off course I cannot say anything about it or the movie would be spoiled, so you have to see for yourself.

The strongest part of the movie for me was the part where the barkeeper (Ethan Hawke) meets John who tells his life story. There was really strong chemistry between the two actors in this scene and they made good use of showing well detailed flashbacks. Some reviewers complained that the movie should have opened with this scene and I agree with them. It took a while for me to adjust from the world building / exciting opening scene to two people who share a story over some drinks. It all comes together in the third act of the film but I think the movie improved if they managed to do all the world building after the bar scene.

But otherwise this movie looks and sounds great. The time travel special effects are done very well and look realistic to me. And unlike some other time travel paradox movies, this one is full closure: you should know and understand everything when the credits roll.

So definitely check this out if you like time travel movies or just want to watch a movie and go "WTF?" a few times.

Despite never having played the video-game(s), I was curious about this movie. So far most video-game movie adaptions are unwatchable so maybe this one can change that trend. And having Fassbender on board is a good start, right?

After a brief introductory in 15th century Spain, we meet Cal Lynch (Fassbender) who is on dead row and about to receive a lethal injection. He is not killed however but abducted into a research facility called 'Abstergo Industries' and he is needed for an important experience. Abstergo has created a device to relive memories of the ancestors of whoever is plugged into the device. Turns out that Cal is the last remaining descendant in a long bloodline that can be tracked down to a great assassin of 15th century Spain: Aguilar de Nerha. The Abstergo scientists have found out that Anguilar was tasked with protecting an ancient artifact and keep it from falling into the Templars, who want to use the artifact to control all human life on earth. Through re-living Aguilar's memories, they hope Cal can find out the location of the artifact in the present day. But will Cal help the scientists and why do they want the artifact so desperately?

Assassin's Creed is an action movie with a simple plot (find object x for us), some cool action scenes in 15th century Spain and present time but with loads of boring scenes that are only there to explain stuff literary. The only character with some depth is Cal, all the other people could be easily replaced with cardboard cutouts because you never get to know what drives them and where they came from. The research facility is filled with other 'prisoners' but I still don't know what they were doing there and why? There are some who have one or two lines in the movie, but how am I suppose to care for these folks? And there are hundreds of guards, despite it not being a prison but none of them has a gun? Fassbender says: 'what the f*ck is going on?' in the movie, and that pretty much sums it up.

And I don't want to come over as a bloodthirsty person but why the hell is this not rated R? If you make a movie about people killing each other with knives and swords it makes sense to show bloody scenes! They cut away from violent scenes so often in this movie it makes my head hurt. There are scenes with twenty people getting killed with knives in a room but there is not one drop of blood! A miracle! And I guess there is some great stunt-work pulled of but you never get to see it because each action scene is filmed from 15 angles that change every second. It almost look like a picture slide show at times, horrible! The ending is very disappointing, and has the worst sequel bate I have seen in some time. They could as well put 'to be continued..' under it.

I don't see any reason to watch this movie, it's just a giant mess with slide show action scenes. To bad that great talents like Fassbender waste their time on projects like these, but I guess he bought a nice boat or car from it? Also sad that they once again failed to make a good video-game movie, I'll just keep waiting.

Coherence is a movie about eight friends who haven't seen each other for a while and finally getting together for a diner. On the night of the diner, disturbing things start happening like cellphones not working and power failing. Some of the friends think it is all related to a comet that passes close to earth that night, but how far does the comet effects go?

I went to see this movie without knowing anything about it. The movie start's slow, with a bunch of thirty-something people getting together and talking about relationships. But soon weird things start happening to these people and it gets weirder as more information is revealed. They keep a good pace and it's easy to follow the story as long as you keep paying attention.

It's great to see how much can be achieved with just eight actors, a house and hardly any special effects. As long as you have a descent script and talented people, good films can be made without huge budgets. That said, there were a few moments in the movie that were a bit dull though and I wished they focused more on the thriller aspect. The characters are going through some very weird stuff and some of them stay a bit to calm. The ending is very good though and could keep you pondering for a bit about what happened.

So do check this movie out if you like mysterious movies with a light touch of Science Fiction thrown in.

After the very bad Underworld: Awakening I was curious if the 5th movie in the franchise was going to be any better. I was surprised that it could be even worse..

The movie opens with the exact same boring recap of the previous movies only now it also includes the 4th one as well. The story picks up right after the last movie ended. Vampire death dealer Selene (Kate Beckinsale) has lost her daughter and only has two people to trust in the world: the vampires David (Theo James) and his father Thomas (Charles Dance). The lycans and other vampires are after the blood of Selene's daughter, because she is the first pure blood hybrid. Selene get's lured into the main vampire coven to help prepare for the battle against the lycans but who can she trust in there?

We all know that these movies only have one job to do: look cool and have awesome action scenes. But the first hour(!) does not contain any action at all! It's just one boring plot exposing scene after another, where the cardboard cutout characters are telling us what we need to know just over and over until even the most die-hard fan is dozing of. And when the action finally start, it looks so ridiculous that I was almost falling of the couch from laughter. There is a scene with two people standing 3 feet apart, shooting at each other without cover..? And after their guns are empty they start screaming at each other because why not? :P

It's also confusing that some vampires are invincible but others can be killed by twisting their neck? Euhm WTF? And why do the vampire wait patiently before the lycans are transformed before attacking? Is that some kind of moral code? And the lycans bring some awesome looking big gun but all it does is punch some holes in the walls to let sunlight in. Wow. So after all this time the big brains of the lycans come with the idea of punching holes in walls? Ow and what about the ice castle battle? "we are safe from the lycans here, it's to cold". 20 seconds later there is a lycan attack: because they wear COATS! Wow they are evolving fast! :P

Underworld: Awakening was bad but at least it had some action in it. I don't know what this is supposed to be but your better of watching the first one again. The only thing that is keeping it from a '1' is that it gave me a good laugh.

I'm not a big fan of the Underworld movie franchise but I enjoyed the first two installments and after the prequel setting of the below-average third movie, I was interested what would become of the Selene and Michael story. Turned out I haven't missed much.

This movie starts with a brief re-cap of what happened in the first two movies. After that it is explained that the vampires and lycans are discovered by the rest of mankind, who want to wipe both species out. Selene fights hard against the humans, searching for Michael which she finds in the harbor. Unfortunately, a grenade hits the both of them just after they find each other and all goes black for Selene. She wakes up a long time later from cryogenic sleep in a laboratory, having no idea what has happened to Michael or the other vampires. Selene now has to find out where the remaining vampires are, if the lycans are still a threat and how she mysteriously woke up from her sleep..

While the story is 'okay-ish', this is a very weak and sometimes laughably bad movie. Okay, I know these movies are not supposed to be taken to seriously but the characters are so weak, the CGI so horrible and the action so over the top that it's just bad. The only character with more then two lines of background is Selene and only if you watched the previous installments. Nothing new is added to her character, no development at all. And I'm supposed to believe that she cannot be damaged at all? She gets elevators dropped on top of her, cars thrown against her but nothing can hurt her, or her outfit. She also can bring people back from the dead by sticking her hand inside them and grabbing their heart..? WTF?

The other characters are just there to be killed off or given a few lines to help the plot along. You are supposed to care about some characters but because they are just cardboard cutouts, you just laugh at the horrible bad effects when they get killed or kill lycans. There is a car chase scene with lycans pursuing the heroes but it looked so bad that I was just laughing. I have seen video game cut scenes from the 90's with better effects.

So yeah, unless your a big fan of the franchise best leave this movie in the garbage bin. Stick to the first two movies and write your own ending for the franchise, it will be better then this pile of manure.

When I heart a sequel was being made to one of my favorite movies, I was a bit skeptical. The original Trainspotting had a great ending, with the four friends going their separate ways. But then I saw the trailer, saw some positive reviews and I got more curious. Turns out this is a very entertaining and well-made movie.

The movie opens with introducing where the four main characters are now, twenty years later. We see Begbie (Robert Carlyle) still in jail and although he's gotten old, he has lost none of his fiery temper. Spud (Ewen Bremner) tried to quit the junkie life and live a decent citizen life but he keeps falling back to his old habits and cannot even keep track of daylight savings (because when you're on smack, who cares about daylight savings?). Simon / Sick Boy (John Lee Miller) lives a chaotic life of light criminal activities, has traded heroine for cocaine and tries to get a relation going with a young Bulgarian girl named Veronika (Anjela Nedyalkova). And finally we meet Mark (Ewan McGregor) again who lived in Amsterdam for the past twenty years and decides to go back to the only place he can call home. He goes to see his old palls Spud and Simon, but can they forgive him for running off with the money twenty years ago? And can he still connect with them and call them friends after all these years?

This movie is all about the characters, and they did a very good job at giving these four people twenty years more content. With the first movie in mind, you could easily see that these characters ended up where they are now. The actors also have a lot more experience now and it really shows. I was impressed with both Ewen Bremner and John Lee Miller portraying their roles as Spud and Simon respectively. While Spud is still the focus of most of the humor, he also brings a lot of drama to his role now and does that very well. I personally liked Robert Carlyle better in the first movie, but he still has some great moments where the old hot tempered Begbie shines. McGregor was outstanding in the original but while he does a good job, he was not outstanding in this one. But perhaps that is more because the rest of the cast was so great.

The film also looks gorgeous and is filled with flashbacks to the original that blend over very well in present time. There are lots of hilarious scenes (the 1690 Battle of the Boyne remembrance party is my favorite) and subtle nods to the original (a disgusting toilet in a club for example). The soundtrack of this movie is also fantastic, with excellent present time music, a few old tracks and a few remixes of iconic songs from the first film.

Finally I like how this movie holds a mirror to everyone who grew up with the original. What have you been up to for the past twenty years? Do you get on with the times or are you still stuck in the past? Do you also keep talking about how great life was in the 80's/90's to millennials? The movie tackles present time issues also, and I loved Renton's updated 'choose life' speech: 'choose Twitter, Snap-chat, Instagram and Facebook. Post a picture of your breakfast and hope that someone, somewhere, cares'.

This movie is definitely a must see for everyone who grew up with the original, but also with enough material to keep the new generation glued to the screen.

Homefront is a simple crime / action movie with Jason Statham who plays ex-DEA agent Phil Broker (again an ex-something, it's getting old..) who tries to settle down with his nine year old daughter in a quiet town. Things don't stay quiet long for Broker after his daughter knocks out a bully at school and he get's in a fight with the bully's parents. This incident draws a lot of unwanted attention to Broker, including the local drug lord Bodine (James Franco) who wants to know why Broker taught his daughter to fight like that. Can Broker shake this attention off and keep his new quiet life or not?

Since it is a Statham movie, my expectations where not high but this movie was still below average. The characters where hardly worked out as believable people, there was no chemistry between Statham and the girl who is supposed to be his daughter and the story is so simple that you already know how it's going to end after watching the first twenty minutes.

James Franco didn't work for me as the main bad guy, he hardly did anything to look like a bad-ass. Winona Ryder plays his girlfriend but she was probably having a bad day or something: worst performance I have seen from her so far. There was also some weird effect where they show bits of the next scene in the current scene, to make the transition between the two scenes 'special'? It looked awful and didn't work at all.

It's not the worst Statham movie but if your looking for a mindless action movie your better off watching 'Killer Eliter' or 'Blitz' instead of this one.