The plot itself wasn't that bad but it was somehow lazy and too convenient. Convenient for the writers to create a dramatic, tear-jerking ending and many so-much needed sacrifices. For one, it beggars belief that the team would agree upon sending two humans who hadn't been to space before to Vormir. Why did they not send Rocket or at least someone teaming up with Rocket? Why a spy and an archer? The team didn't know that a sacrifice would be required but still they sent Nat and Clint there. Too convenient. And this plot point isn't the only convenient plot point in the movie.
Reviews
6 Reviews
The Bravados
(1958)
Could have been good without the romance
3 April 2015
Warning: Spoilers
I enjoyed this movie. The plot was interesting. But. Yes, there is a "but."
Many strange things happened in this movie, like, why exactly a posse couldn't take care of an outlaw by themselves. They even let the outlaw ride away to get back to his friends. I will not complain about any other plot holes because there have been other reviewers pointing them out already. What's really bugging me is the romance between Jim and Josefa.
I knew they were ex-couple. But Jim was supposed to be a mourning husband, trying to avenge his wife's death. He said he still loved her. He rode 100 miles hunting these men for six months! But at the end of the movie, Jim seemed to accept Josefa as his new girlfriend easily. Dead wife forgotten.
Josefa was strange too. She wanted Jim. She knew Jim was married but she flirted with him anyway. After knowing about his wife's tragedy, she still tried to get closer to him. She wanted to go to his ranch right away. She said she'd take care of his daughter as if the girl was "her own" and then she kissed him right in front of Jim's daughter. It appeared to me that the woman was down right shameless. And Jim accepting her made him a lesser man than when he firstly rode into the town.
The relationship grew too fast it was groundless, meaningless and made the story worse. Many western movies made the same mistake.
Many strange things happened in this movie, like, why exactly a posse couldn't take care of an outlaw by themselves. They even let the outlaw ride away to get back to his friends. I will not complain about any other plot holes because there have been other reviewers pointing them out already. What's really bugging me is the romance between Jim and Josefa.
I knew they were ex-couple. But Jim was supposed to be a mourning husband, trying to avenge his wife's death. He said he still loved her. He rode 100 miles hunting these men for six months! But at the end of the movie, Jim seemed to accept Josefa as his new girlfriend easily. Dead wife forgotten.
Josefa was strange too. She wanted Jim. She knew Jim was married but she flirted with him anyway. After knowing about his wife's tragedy, she still tried to get closer to him. She wanted to go to his ranch right away. She said she'd take care of his daughter as if the girl was "her own" and then she kissed him right in front of Jim's daughter. It appeared to me that the woman was down right shameless. And Jim accepting her made him a lesser man than when he firstly rode into the town.
The relationship grew too fast it was groundless, meaningless and made the story worse. Many western movies made the same mistake.
Unbroken
(I) (2014)
Hope for the better but it was fine
21 March 2015
Warning: Spoilers
The title says for itself. This movie isn't about anything else but how Olympian Louis Zamperini, how he grew up and how he survived the WWII.
Unbroken could have been a great film.
I don't think the story-line is too slow. Instead, I think that the movie is too short. The movie tells us so much about Louis and how he could keep his mind (and his friends's mind) sane during the 47 days in a raft. But after he was picked up by Japanese army, every scene went in a rush. Louis hardly said anything, anything at all. It's a shame because we need to know what he was thinking. We need to learn from him and from every soldier captured in the POW camps. How they won the war by remaining alive. Two-hour just isn't enough.
As for the Bird, we need to know more about him too. His character in the film is too flat. It was hard too comprehend why he did things that he did. Why he said what he said too Louise.
I've known about Miyavi since when he was in the band Dué le Quartz. Although I didn't like his screaming, I thought he was a great guitarist. Seeing him act in this movie was strange but refreshing. His English is good which is good for the film. Except, he pronounced English words so carefully it could sound unnatural and lack of feelings. (Not for me thought. I live in Japan so I am used to Japanese pronouncing English.) I won't blame him for being too pretty or too soft for the role because every young Japanese actor looks girlish. Like Tanroh Ishida in The Railway Man, he even looks younger and more girlish than Miyavi.
Unbroken could have been a great film.
I don't think the story-line is too slow. Instead, I think that the movie is too short. The movie tells us so much about Louis and how he could keep his mind (and his friends's mind) sane during the 47 days in a raft. But after he was picked up by Japanese army, every scene went in a rush. Louis hardly said anything, anything at all. It's a shame because we need to know what he was thinking. We need to learn from him and from every soldier captured in the POW camps. How they won the war by remaining alive. Two-hour just isn't enough.
As for the Bird, we need to know more about him too. His character in the film is too flat. It was hard too comprehend why he did things that he did. Why he said what he said too Louise.
I've known about Miyavi since when he was in the band Dué le Quartz. Although I didn't like his screaming, I thought he was a great guitarist. Seeing him act in this movie was strange but refreshing. His English is good which is good for the film. Except, he pronounced English words so carefully it could sound unnatural and lack of feelings. (Not for me thought. I live in Japan so I am used to Japanese pronouncing English.) I won't blame him for being too pretty or too soft for the role because every young Japanese actor looks girlish. Like Tanroh Ishida in The Railway Man, he even looks younger and more girlish than Miyavi.
Gone Girl
(2014)
I'm a fan a of true crime books. OK, then, look at the score I gave.
20 December 2014
Warning: Spoilers
I didn't always vote on IMDb but if my two-cents could warn people not to let their hope up on this movie or not waste their time watching at all, I would. However, if you like a lousy crime thriller film wanna-be, this one is your very choice.
I am wondering why Gone Girl is getting a pretty good score here. 8.4, huh? Are you kidding me? Are people not seeing that NOTICEABLY FAT PLOT HOLE? I had raised my brows at how cops in this movie worked since their first appearance. The writer had no knowledge how the system worked but he dare try to write a crime fiction. He used many wrong imagination. So, what we got and paid for is this piece-of-s--, I mean, art.
Gone Girl tells a story of a manipulative lady who got a bunch of idiots around her, so, compared to them, she was real smart. One day, she thought she'd set her cheating husband up for a murder, so she sent him out and drove her evil plan in motion. She drew out her blood, threw it around the house then cleaned the house, not knowing when her husband would come home and discover all of it. Luckily, he didn't come home before she got away. For her, everything was perfect timing and a piece of cake.
As the film went on and on, everybody believed what she said and ate what she served without any doubts in their mind.
This sounds very 'Mary Sue' to me.
Every cops in the writer's world worked like an amateur. They worked fast (too fast) but use no brains. They didn't work the evidences or traced any phones. They used only what she fed them.
FBI wouldn't do anything about a bloody murder even though the feds had the murderer sitting in front of them soaking in blood, confessing and not even feeling freaked out although she told the cops that she had been kidnapped and raped. And then, the cops let her husband drive her home, still soaking in blood. (When I saw that scene, I was going to fall apart.)
That's it. That's the whole story.
Tell me she used some kind of dark magic, that would be more reasonable than everybody in the world being an idiot and listening to this Mary Sue's words regardless.
This movie was disappointing.
I am wondering why Gone Girl is getting a pretty good score here. 8.4, huh? Are you kidding me? Are people not seeing that NOTICEABLY FAT PLOT HOLE? I had raised my brows at how cops in this movie worked since their first appearance. The writer had no knowledge how the system worked but he dare try to write a crime fiction. He used many wrong imagination. So, what we got and paid for is this piece-of-s--, I mean, art.
Gone Girl tells a story of a manipulative lady who got a bunch of idiots around her, so, compared to them, she was real smart. One day, she thought she'd set her cheating husband up for a murder, so she sent him out and drove her evil plan in motion. She drew out her blood, threw it around the house then cleaned the house, not knowing when her husband would come home and discover all of it. Luckily, he didn't come home before she got away. For her, everything was perfect timing and a piece of cake.
As the film went on and on, everybody believed what she said and ate what she served without any doubts in their mind.
This sounds very 'Mary Sue' to me.
Every cops in the writer's world worked like an amateur. They worked fast (too fast) but use no brains. They didn't work the evidences or traced any phones. They used only what she fed them.
FBI wouldn't do anything about a bloody murder even though the feds had the murderer sitting in front of them soaking in blood, confessing and not even feeling freaked out although she told the cops that she had been kidnapped and raped. And then, the cops let her husband drive her home, still soaking in blood. (When I saw that scene, I was going to fall apart.)
That's it. That's the whole story.
Tell me she used some kind of dark magic, that would be more reasonable than everybody in the world being an idiot and listening to this Mary Sue's words regardless.
This movie was disappointing.
The Thrill's Long Gone.
23 December 2011
Warning: Spoilers
I just watched 'M:I Ghost Protocol' this afternoon. At the end of the movie, I thought, 'are you kidding me?' The plot wasn't well written. There were too many useless characters. And the mission couldn't be considered impossible at all.
"There's a Russian police who was chasing Ethan, accusing him and his organization for the bomb in Moscow. IMF was shut down. Ethan and the other 3 formed a team. They had no support and less tools. They were expected to stop a nuclear war and to prove that they weren't responsible for Moscow bombing." ---which sounds quite difficult and interesting to me. But in this movie, everything was so unbearably easy.
Giving Ethan's team tons of hi-tech tools, They could go in and out every building in the world. They could destroy the buildings' properties or hack their system without being noticed. Without being noticed? that sounds unbelievable, does it not. Oh, yes, villains. There were only 3 villains (fewer than Ethan's team) with, no hi-tech gadgets, even no bodyguards. They shot people but police never came. Simply unrealistic. And let's just forget about the Russian police sub-plot which was considerably meaningless.
M:I Ghost Protocol is somehow watchable so I gave it 5 stars. Although, in fact, I was very disappointed for it couldn't thrill me at all. If anyone asked me 'was the movie good?', I'd say---FORGET ABOUT LOGIC and it'll worth your while.
"There's a Russian police who was chasing Ethan, accusing him and his organization for the bomb in Moscow. IMF was shut down. Ethan and the other 3 formed a team. They had no support and less tools. They were expected to stop a nuclear war and to prove that they weren't responsible for Moscow bombing." ---which sounds quite difficult and interesting to me. But in this movie, everything was so unbearably easy.
Giving Ethan's team tons of hi-tech tools, They could go in and out every building in the world. They could destroy the buildings' properties or hack their system without being noticed. Without being noticed? that sounds unbelievable, does it not. Oh, yes, villains. There were only 3 villains (fewer than Ethan's team) with, no hi-tech gadgets, even no bodyguards. They shot people but police never came. Simply unrealistic. And let's just forget about the Russian police sub-plot which was considerably meaningless.
M:I Ghost Protocol is somehow watchable so I gave it 5 stars. Although, in fact, I was very disappointed for it couldn't thrill me at all. If anyone asked me 'was the movie good?', I'd say---FORGET ABOUT LOGIC and it'll worth your while.
The Experiment
(2010)
This movie is not about Stanford Prison Experiment.
23 September 2011
Warning: Spoilers
Firstly, please let me suggest that this movie is not about Stanford Prison Experiment. It doesn't claim that it presents what happened in 1971 at Stanford' basement. The experiment in this movie was done somewhere else by someone else and it seemed illegal to me. That's the point. Please keep it in mind while watching.
Moreover. Is The Experiment a remake of 2001 Das Experiment? I guess not. Two movies share the same plot (prison experiment) but each one has its own characters and story line. Good thing is you could watch both movies excitedly about what will happen next. Fahd(2001) is a reporter, Trevis(2010) is not. Stories are quite different as well. 2001 has at least 3 researchers working around, 2010 has none.
I assumed what story writer want to tell us is the experiment in 2010 version is an illegal action. The researcher brought men to the location faraway from town, let them be, and didn't give a damn. All the researcher did was collecting information heartlessly, let guards played bad guys as they pleased. So it drove prisoners crazy.
For me, this story makes sense more than 2001 which the experiment was employed in town with only 3 researchers who were unable to control the situation. And I kinda don't like the idea in 2001 movie which let outsiders get involved too much, I mean, Fahd' girlfriend and researchers, 2 women, on top of that. The experiment was supposed to be Male-Only experiment, was it not?
I won't say that which version is better or more original-like for both of them are not completely original-like at all. I watched both, and both of them enjoyed me a lot. Horrifying and disgusting. That's enough for watching movies. If you want to know what happened in 1971 -real- Stanford Prison Experiment, don't waste your hours watching these movies, go watch the documentary named "Quiet Rage: The Stanford Prison Experiment" instead.
Moreover. Is The Experiment a remake of 2001 Das Experiment? I guess not. Two movies share the same plot (prison experiment) but each one has its own characters and story line. Good thing is you could watch both movies excitedly about what will happen next. Fahd(2001) is a reporter, Trevis(2010) is not. Stories are quite different as well. 2001 has at least 3 researchers working around, 2010 has none.
I assumed what story writer want to tell us is the experiment in 2010 version is an illegal action. The researcher brought men to the location faraway from town, let them be, and didn't give a damn. All the researcher did was collecting information heartlessly, let guards played bad guys as they pleased. So it drove prisoners crazy.
For me, this story makes sense more than 2001 which the experiment was employed in town with only 3 researchers who were unable to control the situation. And I kinda don't like the idea in 2001 movie which let outsiders get involved too much, I mean, Fahd' girlfriend and researchers, 2 women, on top of that. The experiment was supposed to be Male-Only experiment, was it not?
I won't say that which version is better or more original-like for both of them are not completely original-like at all. I watched both, and both of them enjoyed me a lot. Horrifying and disgusting. That's enough for watching movies. If you want to know what happened in 1971 -real- Stanford Prison Experiment, don't waste your hours watching these movies, go watch the documentary named "Quiet Rage: The Stanford Prison Experiment" instead.
Tell Your Friends