Change Your Image
Jack_Slater
Reviews
The Lost Daughter (2021)
Pointless and Pretentious
What a waste of just about everyone's talent. Story is pointless, meandering and without substance, and so very pretentious. Harris deserves better, and Colman should know better.
This certainly didn't cut the mustard.
The Tomorrow War (2021)
Edge of Starship Tomorrow Troopers
I have written birthday cards that are better than this attempt at a plot. It's a mishmash of Edge of Tomorrow and Starship Troopers but without the talent. And it cost $200 million to make.
Avoid at all costs.
Riddick (2013)
Alone in the dark, where the demons are torturing me.
This movie is utter dreck.
Vin Diesel does a sub-par Bear Grylls impression for the first act. We then need to endure two teams of muscle-bound mercs spout rejected clichés from 'The Expendables' for the second act. With an Xbox-style "if it moves, shoot it; if it doesn't move, shoot it anyway" battle to finish this most unnecessary of sequels since the last outing of Riddick.
Did nobody realise the most interesting aspect of 'Pitch Black' was *not* actually Riddick, but the weird yet fascinating aliens?! Drop another unsuspecting bunch of space tourists on that planet, and I'd pay to see it.
Save your time and money on this Complete Galactic Incompetence, and just watch 'Pitch Black' instead.
Skyfall (2012)
Craig delivers strong performance, but the plot is weak
I attended a press preview of Skyfall, and was disappointed to say the least. What's worse, is that I was bored - and I'm a huge Bond fan. The final hour drags, and the denouement is a paint-by-numbers, clichéd setup seriously unworthy of the Bond franchise.
So, avoiding any spoilers whatsoever, a few thoughts:
As the credits rolled, I was impressed: Bardem, Fiennes, Deakins, Baird, Newman, Logan, and Mendes. Alas, it was not to be, and unfortunately the whole is not greater than the sum of its parts.
Craig certainly owns the part as 007, it's the plot, script and tone that lets him down.
The plot is one of THE worst ever in Bond history, and I mean bad. It's weak. It's way too limited in scope. And it's painfully uninteresting. Whatever happened to Bond villains obsessed with world domination, nuclear endgame, or crashing the global stock markets? Instead, we get a personal vendetta that nobody really asked for.
I cannot believe that Sam Mendes signed up as director upon the strength of this story-line. Perhaps it was the draw of Bond, and so, he committed to directorial duties with any script, sight unseen.
Bardem is fantastic in his (albeit limited) sociopath's role, but is severely underused (as is new Bond girl, Marlohe). While Dame Judi is annoyingly curt throughout, and overused. (Never once in all my years watching Bond did I think: "Do you know what this franchise needs, more 'M' in a lead role.")
As for the tone, it's a mishmash of stylish espionage thriller coupled with a dry, stale overview of Whitehall government policy review (no, seriously), and Home Alone!?!. Needless to say I was underwhelmed as to where the writers, producers and director decided to take Bond23. Carly Simon once sang "Nobody Does It Better", sadly, in today's competitive market of action, spy, heroes, stunts and humour, many others do, in fact, do it better (Bourne, MI:3, Dark Knight). Far better.
My rating: 3/10. A superb opening sequence. Javier Bardem as villain. Lavish cinematography from Deakins. And a nice cameo from a very old friend from the 1960s.
And one final thought: I really miss Monty Norman's iconic theme from the Craig-era Bonds. Why not play it in its entirety at the most opportune moments? It barely features in Skyfall, and that is such a shame.
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008)
Terrible. Just Terrible.
Directed by a 62 year old. Story by a 64 year old. Starring a 65 year old actor. And coming 19 years after "Last Crusade". This latest installment of "Indiana Jones" certainly looks its age.
If it took this long for Spielberg, Lucas, and Ford to agree on a story/script, I would hate to have seen the other versions they turned down.
The whole movie, with the exception of the motorbike chase scene, looked like it was filmed in a studio, in front of green-screen to save Spielberg and Ford the hassle of having to travel to any of the locations.
The lighting was flat, no shadows, no contrast. Way too clean, way too "modern" in its look. It takes some talent to make a movie supposedly filmed using "old style" film actually look like it was shot digitally! As for the CGI - didn't the producers say it would be used sparingly?? And why did it look so fake? I thought Lucas owns ILM? The story was just shocking. A patchwork of action scenes, with no sense of continuity, characters appear out of nowhere, and for no reason. Karen Allen's character was instrumental in "Raiders" but here, she's simply a plot device. How very lazy. And what a waste of time employing John Hurt if he is not given any decent dialogue?!?!?!
A poor show overall for all concerned (including Koepp). This will be the last movie I pay money to see that carries the Spielberg or Lucas name.
Honogurai mizu no soko kara (2002)
Where's the horror?
I loved "Ringu" and enjoyed "Ringu 2" but "Dark Water" pales in comparison to both movies.
The problem lies with the source material rather than with the direction IMHO. Nakata does manage to create a wonderful atmosphere but he's got very little to work with.
The story doesn't catch your imagination as well as "Ring" does. It's too simplistic, too linear and doesn't have enough of a shock value to really keep you gripped.
** Spoilers **
I really thought the bath-tub scene would rival the T.V. scene from "Ringu", ghost/child appearing out of it slowly, but it went the other way and missed an opportunity to really scare!
It's also *very* similar to "Ringu" in basic plot: dead child, watery grave, follow the clues to solve the mystery...
** End Spoilers **
Suzuki has been described as Japan's version of Stephen King, well in movie terms I suppose "Dark Water" could best described as "It" as opposed to "Misery".
Planet of the Apes (2001)
Makes No Sense
This movie should've had a "To Be Continued..." caption tacked onto the final scene just like those bad soaps from the 80's. It just makes no sense whatsoever!
The movie has no tension, bad pacing and relies way too much on fight sequences than on dialog/story.
Maybe it was the movie theatre I saw it in but was there any score to the movie? If there was I didn't hear it.
A few observations:
We don't really care Leo (Mark Wahlberg) tries to rescue his pet chimp, it's way to early in the movie to care, put it down to bad writing.
None of the human characters has anything of interest to say so why have them speak at all in the movie?
Flying apes? That's what it looked like to me. Sure, the stunt looked great in The Matrix and MI:2 but do we have to have it every movie, even one with apes?
Nice cameo from Mr. Heston, and he gets that great line again!
The battle scene at the end is a very bad rip-off of Braveheart/Gladiator, if you can't better it, leave it alone!
As for the ending... well, you'll have to see the movie for yourself but rest assured, it doesn't work. If you've paid close attention to the movie, it's wrong, if not impossible. It's a cheat, a scam, a cliffhanger that has no cliff to hang you from.
Save your money and rent the original.