Change Your Image
Matt-441
Reviews
Terminator: Dark Fate (2019)
They never learn
There are so many fake reviews trolling this movie , describing scenes that are not even in the movie. Here is an honest impression as a Terminator series fan:
Casting: 7/10
Davis, Luna, Hamilton, and Arnie were well cast. Reyes was a poor choice for such a major role. Reyes' facial expressions and emotions were quite stiff and lifeless even by Arnie standards. They should have cast Dafne Keen Fernandez (from movie Logan), Alice Braga (from movie Predators), or Zoe Saldana (from movie Guardians of the Galaxy) if a native Spanish speaker and female gender was essential.
Character development: 6/10
Not enough flashbacks to draw the audience into Reyes', Hamilton's, and Arnie's past lives. The opening scenes were great, but more of it was needed. The story telling was too superficial and rushed. The result is an unfortunate lack of empathy for the main characters.
Action sequences: 7/10
Solid fight scenes. The agility of Davis and Luna were conveyed very well. Arnie and Hamilton cgi action scenes were engaging enough. Reyes was sorely lacking athleticism despite cgi enhancement. She could not convincingly do simple things like running without looking like a clumsy oaf. Again, casting Dafne Keen Fernandez, Alice Braga, or Zoe Saldana in place of Reyes would have helped this movie a lot.
Storyline: 7/10
The trailers revealed and spoiled way too much. If you've seen the trailer, then you've seen about 90% of the plot. The remaining 10% are major B-movie plot holes that were just sad to watch.
Script: 6/10
Arnie had a few great lines here that made the movie audience collectively laugh out loud. Hamilton's character was given many smart alec one-liners that lacked wit and conviction. They just came off as being cheesy and utterly forgettable. If you are used to the witty banter in Marvel movies from the past decade, the lack of sharp wit in this movie will disappoint.
Watch, Rent, or Skip?
If you are a series fan, then watch.
If you are a general sci-fi fan, then rent.
If you are new to the series, then skip.
Blackfish (2013)
We know nothing about these creatures
I am always skeptical when watching a documentary, always considering whether someone's personal agenda is being unfairly promoted in a one- sided documentary. As you watch this movie and you compare it to the time line of events reported in national news, you realize that this movie really did an amazing job at laying out all of the facts that are publicly available.
In a world where emotion and logic do not necessarily align, the interviews in this movie were so incredibly heartfelt and yet so logical. Unlike some documentaries that distort the facts, this movie did not have a deceptive narrator or a comic relief script. This documentary is composed primarily of real interviews with video footage to demonstrate the basis for the interview responses. I highly recommend this movie to anyone who loves animals or is curious about animals.
It covers many interesting facts about killer whales including social structure, family hierarchy, brain function, separation anxiety, maternal grief, wild behaviors, captive behaviors, Pavlovian conditional training, effect of reward and punishment, accidental violent behaviors, deliberate violent behaviors, how killer whales are captured, how killer whales are bred in captivity, and causes of death in captivity. The more we learn about killer whales, the more we begin to realize that we know nothing about these creatures.
If violent human behavior cannot be prevented 100% of the time, how can the same be expected from wild carnivores?
Sniper: Reloaded (2011)
Edge of your seat suspense!
One of the most exciting sniper films in the past 10 years. It will keep you at the edge of your seat from start to finish. The ending is totally unexpected and very satisfying. The portrayal of the military service is quite accurate unlike other sniper films that have too much sensationalism and exaggerated bravado. Don't expect too much special effects. This is a sniper film which relies on sneaky cat and mouse or hide and seek tactics, not a film about exploding robot aliens or mercenaries wielding dual Gatling guns. If you are looking for a fun action movie with a lot of suspense and a tiny hint of drama and romance, you will enjoy this movie.
Cloverfield (2008)
If you've seen the trailer, you've seen the whole movie
The good: The film was shot in New York City. The sound mixing was decent. The acting was natural. The trailer represented what the entire movie was about, unfortunately representing it all too well.
The bad: Storyline was lacking content. Poor character development. There was absolutely no chemistry between the key characters. Bad camera angles. Cheap special effects and puppet-like monsters that belong in a B-movie. Predictable ending. The movie trailer is great because it makes you wonder what the movie is all about. After you watch the movie, you realize that after 2 hours you learned nothing more in comparison to the 20 second trailer.
Hulk (2003)
For grown-ups, not for kids
This movie is 50% drama and 50% action. The character depth is comparable if not better than the spiderman movies. This is not a kid's movie and I can see kids getting bored really quickly. Compared to other superhero movies including Superman, Batman, Spiderman, the hulk has a storyline that is quite touching - similar to the x-men series of movies. If you liked the x-men series, you will like the hulk. If you enjoyed the newer batman movies, then this movie might bore you. I give it 8/10 stars for great acting, great CGI detail, great character development, great storyline but poor CGI directing. I hope they make a sequel.
Szerelmem, Elektra (1974)
Artsy Fartsy movie with too much fart and not enough art
This movie lacks originality. The script is poor, the budget is probably less than that of a high school play, the costumes look horrendous, the performers are stiff as nails, the dialog is numb, the landscape is barren, the cinematography is amateur, the props look like they are about to fall apart, and the pace is slower than drying paint. It was made in 1974, but seems as though it was made in the 1940's and in someone's backyard.
Artsy Fartsy movie with too much fart and not enough art. If you are in the mood for an artsy fartsy movie, look elsewhere.
2/10 stars
Van Helsing (2004)
5 of 10 stars
The good: Good special effects.
The bad: The dialogue was cliche. The special effects are nothing new by today's standards. Fight scenes lacked choreography. Lots of plot holes. For example, the monsters somehow get to keep their underwear while the rest of their clothes melt into their skin during transformation. The characters were inconsistent in their abilities. In one scene a character can leap tall buildings in a single bound, and another scene later the same character can't hardly climb a ledge.
This movie was rated PG-13, however it was basically a rated G movie with a script fit for saturday morning cartoons and a few scenes of violence to get the rating up to a PG-13.
Spider-Man 2 (2004)
9 of 10 stars
******WARNING SPOILERS*********
Some major plot holes that I've noticed:
1) If Doc Oc was so evil, why didn't he just torture Harry Osborn to get his Tririum instead of wasting time trying to hunt down and torture Spidey, Pete Paker, and MJ Watson? Obeying Harry was out of character for Doc Oc.
2) Despite clear instruction from Harry Osborn to interrogate Pete Parker, Doc Oc hurls a car at him (into the cafe window while with MJ Watson). Doc Oc should have known that a dead person can't be interrogated. It was a spectacular scene, but again doesn't quite fit into the rest of the story.
3) Why did Doc Oc die underwater? Did he die of old age? There was no explanation at all !
Overall 9 out of 10 stars.
Reign of Fire (2002)
False Advertising
The trailer for this movie was blatantly misleading: 1.) There are hardly any dragon scenes in the movie. 2.) There are no apache attack helicopters. 3.) Instead of showing dragons, they just show flames coming out of nowhere and expect you to just imagine dragons in your mind. If all I wanted was to imagine dragons, I would've just read a book instead of watching a movie.
If you want to see a movie with dragons, go see DragonHeart of Lord of the Rings.
This movie will disappoint.
Lost in Translation (2003)
Over-rated movie about nothing
The only thing truly great about this movie are the reviews. The movie itself is artsy-fartsy and lacks a storyline - it has no beginning, no end, no crisis, and no resolution. It has funny moments, lonely moments, tranquil moments, but no story to support these moments. The cinematography is okay, and the acting is not particularly demanding - how hard can it be to sit in a bar and say nothing? Or to lay in bed and say nothing? Or to stare out a window and say nothing. A mannequin can act the part just as well. For cinematography and a unique cultural experience, I give this movie 6/10 stars.
The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003)
Power Rangers on a $100M budget
If the producers of Power Rangers had $100 million to spend on a movie, they would create a trilogy not much different from Lord of the Rings. For a 3.5 hour movie, you would think they could tie up loose-ends, but there was much to be desired in the character development. Why is Gimli nothing more than a comic-relief dwarf reciting one-liners that are so cliche? Why is Arwen just a wet blanket who weeps her way through the trilogy? Why are all the orcs exactly like the power rangers villains? Tolkien must be rolling over in his grave!
And what's up with the horrendous computer graphics? Legolas' circus acrobatics was rendered so poorly, it appears 10 year older than the first Matrix movie. The head of the CG department should be fired!
And what's up with the spider biting through Frodo's Mithril chain mail of invincibility? He was supposed to be bitten in the arm, not in the chest through the chain mail?!
There is so much more to gripe about. But to summarize, computer generated orcs (even 10,000 of them) are not enough to bring this movie back from the grave.
Punch-Drunk Love (2002)
Artsy Fartsy with too much Fart and not enough Art
This movie had some great clips interspersed throughout the movie, as many fans have already outlined, but it contained too many fillers that add nothing but empty minutes to the story.
************SPOILERS AHEAD*************
Socially inept wimp meets a woman and, because of their mutual weirdness, fall in love with each other. This love, in turn, results in a metamorphosis that turns our wimp into a brave hero who finally has direction in his life.
This movie should have been 15 minutes, perhaps 30 minutes tops, and not 95 minutes. I'd rather be watching infomercials between scenes.
For example, the phone sex scene was completely worthless - it is not funny unless you have the mind of a 14 year-old. It adds nothing at all to the story. The director drags this whole phone-sex idea all over the place, scene after scene, just to show in the end that the hero is able to stand up for himself against the villains, and yet the villains were flat under-developed characters with no individuality. The villains might as well be a pack of mean dogs that attack Adam Sandler and Emily Watson in the car.
Too much icing, not enough cake.
The artsy-fartsy plot deserves a 9/10, but because it was diluted with meaningless scenes encompassing more than two-thirds the movie, I give it a 5/10.
The Green Mile (1999)
"To Kill a Mockingbird" meets "X-files"
Great hybrid of "To Kill a Mockingbird" and "X-files". Pleasantly surprising movie, not given away by the trailers. I give it a 9 out of 10.
The minor problem areas include:
***WARNING: SPOILERS BELOW***
1) Fact: Mr. Jingles is a baby rat, not a mouse. 2) Fact: Mr. Jingles is a female, not a male. 3) Why did Wild Bill have to get shot when he was getting the electric chair anyway?
I'm in heaven....when we're out together dancing cheek to cheek.
Raging Bull (1980)
Great film, but overrated
I just saw this yesterday. This is definitely one of De Niro's best performances, possibly better than his work in Taxi Driver and Cape Fear. De Niro deserves a 10/10 for his acting, but the plot seems to lack substance. There was too much repetition of scenes in the film, and when the second hour begins, I couldn't help but say, "haven't I seen a similar scene or heard the same line 6 times in the last hour." Some may feel that this repetition was essential to build-up the tension, but I think after the first hour, most educated viewers should have already gotten the point. Besides this detail, I thought the film was very good and I give it an 8/10. People should watch this if only to experience the superb job that De Niro and Scorsese have done. Joe Pesci was very good too, but not as good as his role in the movie Goodfellas.
Apocalypse Now (1979)
Over-rated film
Although this film may have been impressive for its time, it is comparable to a B-movie by today's standards. If you want more realistic war movies from similar genre, there's Platoon, Full Metal Jacket, Hamburger Hill, Born on the Fourth of July. The first 2/3 of Apocalypse Now is not bad at all, however the last 1/3 and ending were just littered with poorly thought-out, cheap B-movie production qualities. Because this is a war movie, there obviously has to be a lot of dead bodies. Well, the dead bodies all over the ground were all fresh and clean, as if they were all washed with soap and preservatives after they died. Humans have buried (or burned) dead bodies for a reason, and yet the townsfolk appear to intentionally litter their community with the bodies of their dead victims (again, all clean and fresh) like expensive furniture. I can go on but it's not even worth my time to comment further. I give this movie a 6/10 for a spectacular 2/3 beginning and horrible 1/3 ending.
Breakfast at Tiffany's (1961)
Mixed Review
I rented this film because a short but memorable clip was featured within the movie "Dragon: The Bruce Lee Story" which is another drama that I highly recommend. Breakfast at Tiffany's is a light-hearted romantic comedy which is quite endearing and would have been one of the dominant romantic classics had it been a bit more politically correct. There are racist overtones throughout the film, most likely spawned from the anti-Asian sentiments of the era. There was a clear attempt to use racism as a form of comedy. But even overlooking this aspect, there were quite a lot of unrealistic portrayals in the film. Any woman living in New York City would know better than to invite a stranger into her apartment and bedroom, wearing only a shirt and underwear. I gave this movie an 8/10 for the romance, 3/10 for the comedy. Before you see this movie, I recommend that you first see "Dragon: The Bruce Lee Story."
It's a Wonderful Life (1946)
Didn't do well in the box office ???
This movie supposedly did poorly when it was first released in the box office. I was never a fan of films from pre-1960's, and had always thought they were inappropriately dramatic, poorly acted, and boring. It's a Wonderful Life may be one of the few exceptions to this. I thought the movie was phenomenal. The acting, script, and plot was incredible. Some of the lines were so simple and yet the acting made it all come alive. At the end of the movie, there is a featurette called "The Making of It's a Wonderful Life." It was revealed that the actor/actress forgot several pages worth of script lines in several scenes, but the acting was so great that the director decided to trash that segment of the script. This might might have been the ingredient that saved this movie from the boredom that plagues most films from this era. Without going into the spoilers, I will just say that this is definitely one of the top 5 feel-good dramas of the century, and the IMDB votes certainly reflect this. So why didn't this film do well in the box office? The featurette covers this in detail, but watch the movie and decide for yourself.
The End of the Affair (1999)
Best Picture? No Way!
This film was pathetic, totally unconvincing. The reactions of the characters to the events that surround them are so unrealistic. The story fails to focus on the important points, the script does not reflect the plot, and much of the critical detail is left out. The following examples might be SPOILERS, so beware: The character Henry was unconvincing. What kind of guy would be so idle and passive after discovering that his wife was having an affair with the very guy standing in the room with him. It's as if Henry was short on testosterone that day. Even the script and storylines in Beverly Hills 90210 are more believable. The movie attempts to show that Sarah (Julianne Moore) truly loved Bendrix (Ralph Fiennes), but all the movie shows is lust, lust, and more lust. Even in the 1940's, there was more to love than just sex and physical attraction. I would comment on the chemistry between the characters, but there was none. And ladies, how satisfying could that 20-seconds of sex on the couch really be? The whole movie is just filled with inconsistensies and impossibilities that are normally found only in daytime soap operas that get cancelled after the pilot episode.
Seul contre tous (1998)
A poorly told story
Before seeing this film, I was informed that it was similar to the movie Falling Down (1993), which starred Michael Douglas. Both movies center around an average joe who becomes frustrated with society and is consequently driven into violent rage. However, the parallel ends there. I Stand Alone (Seul contre tous) has a major flaw: The main character of the story was not really subjected to significant abuse from society, and yet he reacts with a rage that is excessive and non-proportional to the mild abuse that he received. These flaws result in two things: The main character can be viewed as unrealistically portrayed or perhaps he is a chronic mental defective. The story attempts to show a cause-and-effect, with cause being abuse from society, and the effect being violent rage. However, our chronic mental defective character (as he was portrayed) reacts in the same manner regardless of whether he is abused, and so the character development really wrecks the plot. It was very hard to empathize with the character, or to even appreciate the logic behind the events that occur. If you haven't seen Falling Down (1993), rent it instead of Seul contre tous.
The Last Emperor (1987)
Beautiful but boring
In one word: Over-rated. The Last Emperor features breathtaking cinematography, but the plot really lacks substance. I can't really fault the scriptwriter or the director for this, because they appear to have maximally sensationalized the few exciting moments of the rather dull and boring emperor. To make things worse, they extend the movie to well over 200 minutes long when 80 minutes would have been more than adequate. Even cheap documentaries aren't this boring. At the end of the movie, I was left wondering what the whole point of the film was. Sure it looked great, and I got a glimpse of the spoiled brat known as the emperor, but emotions were not stirred, lessons were not taught, and there is just not enough character development for me to empathize. Notice that NOBODY will ever say that this is their favorite film of all time.