So I watched Avatar again. And I must say I am more impressed with it today than I was back when it released. Mr Cameron did not take any shortcuts in this one. The visuals, the artwork, the whole WORLD, the direction, the craftsmanship are unmatched in the history of film making. Nothing was spared in terms of means and effort to bring to life a truly unique experience. We have never seen a more stunning, sensual and beautiful nature than what was created here. The scale and magnitude of the project are immense and the result, in my opinion, is so convincing that the movie still looks awesome and fresh some 12 year on. Nothing better has been produced yet. The cast is excellent as well. I only deduct one star for the rather too bland a story. I wish they could have invented something more thought provoking and original. Regardless, this movie will stand the test of time and will be enjoyed by all future generations. It is one of a kind.
Reviews
12 Reviews
Top Gun: Maverick
(2022)
Best action movie surely for the last 10 years, probably longer
20 August 2022
Really, title. I was 23 when the original came out and I loved it. Well, I am 59 years old now and I loved this one too because emotionally I can relate to many situations and moments the movie captures in a well-crafted, tasteful and mature way. Plus all the action sequences are thrilling and engaging because they were mostly done with real planes in the real world. Everybody involved in this production can be proud of what they achieved. Thank you for this great movie!
Midway
(2019)
A bad movie, very disappointing
20 August 2022
Why? Bad script, bad acting, bad CGI.
For me, the movie gets it all wrong right at the beginning when "Dick Best" pulls off his totally unbelievable, ridiculous cowboy stunt landing on the carrier, trying to impress his rookie gunner. Ed Skrein has not one single redeeming scene or dialogue thereafter in the whole movie where he might actually resemble a real person. Of course he must contend with the terrible, infantile script he was given but maybe he really is just a bad actor. For me this issue got aggrevated due to his character getting the most screen time of them all.
It is also there that it is impossible not to notice right from the start the badly done CGI that pervades the whole movie and reduces it to the visual experience of a video game. Everything is always clean and in excellent repair or condition. The planes always look like they are on their maiden flight, clean and shiny, no specks of leaked oil or traces of exhaust fumes, no dings, no flaws. They still look good and clean even with a lot of holes in them from enemy fire. It is just very ridiculous and easily identified when comparing them to photos of operational combat war planes from the era. They were gruffy, got used and were banged up.
The general cleanliness of the movie irked me at other times too. The actors never seem to sweat or look too distressed. Most silly example of that was the scene of Bruno Gaido and his pilot in the life raft after crashing down into the ocean. Despite the stress and agony they must have gone through over the last few minutes, hours or perhaps days, Gaido looks clean, fresh and cheerful like having stepped out of the bathroom right after his morning toilette.
The script offers only a few moments of intelligence, credibility and genuity and for the most part reduces the actors to mere caricatures of real people. The scenes involving Adm. Nimitz/Woody Harrelson are quite well-done. This includes his encounter with Rochefort in the "Dungeon". It is marred only by the highly improbable even embarrassing speech the script gives the Rochefort actor. Nobody would talk so lacking in respect and factuality to their commanding 4-star Admiral. But then Rochefort actually says some intelligent things too, and the actor Brennan Brown gave a very credible impression.
One other noteworthy, good dialogue I found the brief scene at the officers casino where McClusky explains Best's wife the real reason why her husband was not getting promoted because of recklessness and total disregard of his own and, above all, his men's safety. That actually made a lot of sense. And Luke Evans is a serviceable actor.
Speaking of the actors, of the main leads only Woody Harrelson and the Japanese officers (Yamamoto, Nagumo and Yamaguchi) I found convincing. Patrick Wilson suffers because he is incapable of any facial expressions or nuances in delivering his part. He reminded me of Kevin Costner in that respect, constantly looking like a beaten dog or having a tummy ache. Ed Skrein ruins his opening scene and it goes downhill from there. Dennis Quaid probably overdid the "Bull" aspect of his character a little bit, but was not terrible. Aaron Eckhart is a good actor but had nothing to work with.
The whole side story of the Doolittle Raid was I found a bit of a waste to see in this movie. But I can imagine it was in part a bow to the Chinese side of the production, as without the Chinese cooperation none of Doolittle's men would have survived when in fact some 71 of 80 returned while the Chinese paid a high price for their help, as correctly stated in the movie.
Overall this movie falls short for me on many levels to be enjoyed. I cited some things but there are many more (eg. Depiction of the actual fighting, confusing editing and plot holes, as well as some historical inaccuracies), while its redeeming qualities I can only find a few, like the good soundtrack and the outro mini-bio's before the end titles.
If you want to learn more about the real Midway I can recommend the book "The Battle of Midway" by Greg L. Symonds as an excellent read.
For me, the movie gets it all wrong right at the beginning when "Dick Best" pulls off his totally unbelievable, ridiculous cowboy stunt landing on the carrier, trying to impress his rookie gunner. Ed Skrein has not one single redeeming scene or dialogue thereafter in the whole movie where he might actually resemble a real person. Of course he must contend with the terrible, infantile script he was given but maybe he really is just a bad actor. For me this issue got aggrevated due to his character getting the most screen time of them all.
It is also there that it is impossible not to notice right from the start the badly done CGI that pervades the whole movie and reduces it to the visual experience of a video game. Everything is always clean and in excellent repair or condition. The planes always look like they are on their maiden flight, clean and shiny, no specks of leaked oil or traces of exhaust fumes, no dings, no flaws. They still look good and clean even with a lot of holes in them from enemy fire. It is just very ridiculous and easily identified when comparing them to photos of operational combat war planes from the era. They were gruffy, got used and were banged up.
The general cleanliness of the movie irked me at other times too. The actors never seem to sweat or look too distressed. Most silly example of that was the scene of Bruno Gaido and his pilot in the life raft after crashing down into the ocean. Despite the stress and agony they must have gone through over the last few minutes, hours or perhaps days, Gaido looks clean, fresh and cheerful like having stepped out of the bathroom right after his morning toilette.
The script offers only a few moments of intelligence, credibility and genuity and for the most part reduces the actors to mere caricatures of real people. The scenes involving Adm. Nimitz/Woody Harrelson are quite well-done. This includes his encounter with Rochefort in the "Dungeon". It is marred only by the highly improbable even embarrassing speech the script gives the Rochefort actor. Nobody would talk so lacking in respect and factuality to their commanding 4-star Admiral. But then Rochefort actually says some intelligent things too, and the actor Brennan Brown gave a very credible impression.
One other noteworthy, good dialogue I found the brief scene at the officers casino where McClusky explains Best's wife the real reason why her husband was not getting promoted because of recklessness and total disregard of his own and, above all, his men's safety. That actually made a lot of sense. And Luke Evans is a serviceable actor.
Speaking of the actors, of the main leads only Woody Harrelson and the Japanese officers (Yamamoto, Nagumo and Yamaguchi) I found convincing. Patrick Wilson suffers because he is incapable of any facial expressions or nuances in delivering his part. He reminded me of Kevin Costner in that respect, constantly looking like a beaten dog or having a tummy ache. Ed Skrein ruins his opening scene and it goes downhill from there. Dennis Quaid probably overdid the "Bull" aspect of his character a little bit, but was not terrible. Aaron Eckhart is a good actor but had nothing to work with.
The whole side story of the Doolittle Raid was I found a bit of a waste to see in this movie. But I can imagine it was in part a bow to the Chinese side of the production, as without the Chinese cooperation none of Doolittle's men would have survived when in fact some 71 of 80 returned while the Chinese paid a high price for their help, as correctly stated in the movie.
Overall this movie falls short for me on many levels to be enjoyed. I cited some things but there are many more (eg. Depiction of the actual fighting, confusing editing and plot holes, as well as some historical inaccuracies), while its redeeming qualities I can only find a few, like the good soundtrack and the outro mini-bio's before the end titles.
If you want to learn more about the real Midway I can recommend the book "The Battle of Midway" by Greg L. Symonds as an excellent read.
The Mule
(2018)
Not sure what this movie is
17 July 2021
I watched during an international flight. It was quite entertaining, sometimes comical, but sometimes too cheaply so. Sometimes it was seriously good. And sometimes bewildering.
I did not understand in the least what this scene tried to tell us where Earl helps out the young black couple in the desert whose car has broken down. Why he deliberately insults them? Why was this scene even in the movie? What was the point? It was completetly out of context.
Another stupid scene that was milked for much too long was where the agents stop this one truck driver who is now constantly babbling how these are statistically the most dangerous 5 minutes of his life.
The scene with the "Dykes on Bikes" was also completety superfluous and added nothing to advance the story or the characters. Just bad script wanting to add "something".
But there were many good and strong scenes also. Overall quite a formulaistic mixed bag that will not leave me impressed with lasting memories.
As a side note, I was shocked to see what has physically become of Andy Garcia.
I did not understand in the least what this scene tried to tell us where Earl helps out the young black couple in the desert whose car has broken down. Why he deliberately insults them? Why was this scene even in the movie? What was the point? It was completetly out of context.
Another stupid scene that was milked for much too long was where the agents stop this one truck driver who is now constantly babbling how these are statistically the most dangerous 5 minutes of his life.
The scene with the "Dykes on Bikes" was also completety superfluous and added nothing to advance the story or the characters. Just bad script wanting to add "something".
But there were many good and strong scenes also. Overall quite a formulaistic mixed bag that will not leave me impressed with lasting memories.
As a side note, I was shocked to see what has physically become of Andy Garcia.
Total Recall
(I) (2012)
Loud, Boring and Forgettable
14 December 2014
Warning: Spoilers
The only reason why I give it two stars and not one is because Jessica Biel has a sweet body and looks good. There really is not more to say about this movie. I'm just glad I saw it today on free TV and have saved myself the money to watch it at the theatre 2 years ago. Jessica Biel has a sweet body and looks good. There really is not more to say about this movie. I'm just glad I saw it today on free TV and have saved myself the money to watch it at the theatre 2 years ago.Jessica Biel has a sweet body and looks good. There really is not more to say about this movie. I'm just glad I saw it today on free TV and have saved myself the money to watch it at the theatre 2 years ago.
Don't be surprised if you get terribly bored by this movie
15 March 2010
This is yet another Jerry Bruckheimer totally over-produced movie, very much like Pearl Harbor. It's useless crap leading nowhere. Boring, shallow, too long, too big, too many explosions, too many special effects, too much so-called "action" (which becomes nauseating quickly), too much noise, too many lame jokes, too much make-up but too many shiny white teeth, too much of everything except entertainment and engaging story. Best enjoyed if you're brain-dead, really. Very dull and a total waste of time. Thank goodness I did not see it in cinema but only on free TV. Money well saved. For me easily one of the most uninspired movies of all times. For an entertaining pirates movie see the lovely Geena Davis in Cutthroat Island. It's rated lower here on IMDb than POTC3, but at least it has charm and doesn't take itself too seriously.
Into the Sun
(2005)
Some surprisingly good moments
22 December 2008
Warning: Spoilers
I will rightfully admit I am not a hardcore Seagal fan by any means. But whenever one of his movies is on late night TV I usually end up watching them even if only to enjoy the cheesy acting and plots, etc... We know how they are.
So yesterday was Into the Sun, and since I've never heard of it, lest seen it, I keep watching. And you know what? One or two things did quite impress me. For one, the opening credits: They are of quite beautifully done and reminded a little bit of the James Bond movies. I suddenly expected a quality movie. Of course I was going to be disappointed: All in all the movie was as trashy as they always are with SS.
I also quite liked some of the visuals and photography like air views of Tokyo and the filming on location. Sure the story went along very slowly and there was not much fighting. But surprisingly, I did not feel it was too bad.
And I quite liked the Japanese/Chinese actors, their styling and looks mostly, but some were acting quite well too. Especially the Kojima character (who later becomes the new Yakuza leader) actually is a really good actor! I wish Seagal had some of his talent to render his lines...
Then the soundtrack was indeed quite good as well, as has been said before.
But of course the sum of it all is still a sad miss. I wonder if Seagal is ever watching his own movies. I mean what would he think?? Come on, he even produces them. So please, can you not get a good scriptwriter for once and put together a decent film that is not full of plot holes, bad acting and cliché? Or is this simply supposed to be like this? I just don't get it... I will stop my rant here because I cannot add anything that has not yet been mentioned in other comments.
Still, there were some good moments in this one. I have seen worse of SS, and therefore 2 stars instead of only one.
So yesterday was Into the Sun, and since I've never heard of it, lest seen it, I keep watching. And you know what? One or two things did quite impress me. For one, the opening credits: They are of quite beautifully done and reminded a little bit of the James Bond movies. I suddenly expected a quality movie. Of course I was going to be disappointed: All in all the movie was as trashy as they always are with SS.
I also quite liked some of the visuals and photography like air views of Tokyo and the filming on location. Sure the story went along very slowly and there was not much fighting. But surprisingly, I did not feel it was too bad.
And I quite liked the Japanese/Chinese actors, their styling and looks mostly, but some were acting quite well too. Especially the Kojima character (who later becomes the new Yakuza leader) actually is a really good actor! I wish Seagal had some of his talent to render his lines...
Then the soundtrack was indeed quite good as well, as has been said before.
But of course the sum of it all is still a sad miss. I wonder if Seagal is ever watching his own movies. I mean what would he think?? Come on, he even produces them. So please, can you not get a good scriptwriter for once and put together a decent film that is not full of plot holes, bad acting and cliché? Or is this simply supposed to be like this? I just don't get it... I will stop my rant here because I cannot add anything that has not yet been mentioned in other comments.
Still, there were some good moments in this one. I have seen worse of SS, and therefore 2 stars instead of only one.
Mystic River
(2003)
A wasted opportunity
4 April 2006
I missed this movie at the theaters so I was very much looking forward to seeing it last night on TV. I knew it had terrific reviews and won a couple of Oscar's - not that this by itself is a sign of particular artistic merits though... Well, back then I was sorry to miss it but now - I hate to admit - I'm quite happy I did because in the end, it turned out to be quite a letdown.
Let me start with a few strong points: It is a slow paced movie, technically low-key, no fireworks, no explosions, no cool one-liners, no car chases, no showdowns, no CGI, no gadgetry. These days this is pretty courageous. In the credits, the list of stuntmen were only 3 names or so long and I still wonder where they were used. So Eastwood deliberately reduces the movie to its essentials: actors and script. And filming the whole thing. I think the art direction and cinematography is very well done. While I've never been to Boston, this blue-collar, unfancy neighborhood is coming across very well. Yes the atmosphere is pretty bleak and even depressing, but I think it fits well.
I cannot find much fault with the acting of the protagonists. Yes Sean Penn is overdoing it a few times (crimesite scene, heavy breathings. I thought he might get a heart attack right there) but nothing to get too upset about. That he deserved the Oscar for this performance is certainly debatable - but then again see my Oscar comment at the beginning.
Tim Robbins puts on the best performance of them all, certainly believable except for the scene with his wife later in the movie where he is trying to cry but ends up laughing... or was he laughing and tried to convert into crying?? Overall he's giving a credible beaten dog.
Bacon is good but there is not much to his character that requires more than being a cop. He is certainly the least troubled of the three "friends".
Fishburne is a very good actor. His cop is entirely believable, nothing overblown except the silly remark about being able to see whether a guy was in jail by the way he carries "it" between his shoulders.
The women are portrayed weakly, though. Hayden, Robbins wife is utterly confusing. Why is she so nervous all the time, even at the beginning? I could not understand.
Linney is a complete loss. She could just as well be left out of the movie, it would change nothing EXCEPT, thankfully, spare us the completely out of context speech at the end. What was THAT?? Well, we must have reached the bottom of our moral bankruptcy if we indeed believe this...
It was great fun to see Eli Wallach in the liquor store. He must be old as Methusalem by now but actually looked pretty good still, and indeed was not senile at all :-). But why not credit him for this cute stunt??
So we have good actors and good filming/art direction up until now.
What's left? Music for once. Or the lack thereof. Please, Clint, next time hire a professional composer again and play your music to your children and grandchildren. But beware, they might not love you more for it... It may be interesting to attempt only one theme for the whole movie. But upon final reviews, somebody should have told you that it failed. The score was very boring. If you want to stick with only one theme, make some variations of it: key, rhythm, instrumentation. Check Bach or Beethoven for instance, and realize that you are not in their league...
And finally the real culprit, the unsatisfactory script. I did not read the underlying book, but it is obvious that the film tries to string together too many twists and ideas with the result that many of them come out half-baked only or not at all. A few examples:
Bacon and his speechless wife: Sure, the idea is to add "depth" to Bacon's character but it is done in a heavy-handed, inelegant way. Scrap these scenes! Instead, show Bacon how he looks at their picture more often, show Fishburne talking to him and Bacon being detracted by seeing the picture. Maybe show some happy (or ugly) memory flashback of his. The resolution as presented, with his wife regaining speech the moment he resolves the case is so far-fetched, so clichéd, so... CHEAP! Are we really so stupid to be treated in this way??
What was this finger-shooting gesture at Penn at the end? Why does Katie want to leave to Las Vegas to commence a new life?
The worst offence of the script was to make a suspect out of Robbins in the first place. Nobody is EVER questioning his motivation for such murder: Not the cops, not his wife, not Sean Penn. Maybe he killed her because the girls danced on the bar and disturbed him watching baseball?? Gimme a break!! Or he does plan to get eventual "revenge" on Penn and waits for 19 years to finally kill his child. Of course not. He would have abducted here at the age of 6 or 8 or so. But this he did not. He is actually a very weak suspect. Anybody in his right mind would immediately see that.
Were Penn (and/or Hayden) indeed so underlit NOT to make Robbins at least show them the body of the killed pedophile? Surely a true case of "blind revenge" in the most literal sense...
I have more but I'm running out of space. There are many things I liked in this film. But the script is simply not good enough to make Mystic River a REALLY good film. A wasted opportunity, sadly so.
Let me start with a few strong points: It is a slow paced movie, technically low-key, no fireworks, no explosions, no cool one-liners, no car chases, no showdowns, no CGI, no gadgetry. These days this is pretty courageous. In the credits, the list of stuntmen were only 3 names or so long and I still wonder where they were used. So Eastwood deliberately reduces the movie to its essentials: actors and script. And filming the whole thing. I think the art direction and cinematography is very well done. While I've never been to Boston, this blue-collar, unfancy neighborhood is coming across very well. Yes the atmosphere is pretty bleak and even depressing, but I think it fits well.
I cannot find much fault with the acting of the protagonists. Yes Sean Penn is overdoing it a few times (crimesite scene, heavy breathings. I thought he might get a heart attack right there) but nothing to get too upset about. That he deserved the Oscar for this performance is certainly debatable - but then again see my Oscar comment at the beginning.
Tim Robbins puts on the best performance of them all, certainly believable except for the scene with his wife later in the movie where he is trying to cry but ends up laughing... or was he laughing and tried to convert into crying?? Overall he's giving a credible beaten dog.
Bacon is good but there is not much to his character that requires more than being a cop. He is certainly the least troubled of the three "friends".
Fishburne is a very good actor. His cop is entirely believable, nothing overblown except the silly remark about being able to see whether a guy was in jail by the way he carries "it" between his shoulders.
The women are portrayed weakly, though. Hayden, Robbins wife is utterly confusing. Why is she so nervous all the time, even at the beginning? I could not understand.
Linney is a complete loss. She could just as well be left out of the movie, it would change nothing EXCEPT, thankfully, spare us the completely out of context speech at the end. What was THAT?? Well, we must have reached the bottom of our moral bankruptcy if we indeed believe this...
It was great fun to see Eli Wallach in the liquor store. He must be old as Methusalem by now but actually looked pretty good still, and indeed was not senile at all :-). But why not credit him for this cute stunt??
So we have good actors and good filming/art direction up until now.
What's left? Music for once. Or the lack thereof. Please, Clint, next time hire a professional composer again and play your music to your children and grandchildren. But beware, they might not love you more for it... It may be interesting to attempt only one theme for the whole movie. But upon final reviews, somebody should have told you that it failed. The score was very boring. If you want to stick with only one theme, make some variations of it: key, rhythm, instrumentation. Check Bach or Beethoven for instance, and realize that you are not in their league...
And finally the real culprit, the unsatisfactory script. I did not read the underlying book, but it is obvious that the film tries to string together too many twists and ideas with the result that many of them come out half-baked only or not at all. A few examples:
Bacon and his speechless wife: Sure, the idea is to add "depth" to Bacon's character but it is done in a heavy-handed, inelegant way. Scrap these scenes! Instead, show Bacon how he looks at their picture more often, show Fishburne talking to him and Bacon being detracted by seeing the picture. Maybe show some happy (or ugly) memory flashback of his. The resolution as presented, with his wife regaining speech the moment he resolves the case is so far-fetched, so clichéd, so... CHEAP! Are we really so stupid to be treated in this way??
What was this finger-shooting gesture at Penn at the end? Why does Katie want to leave to Las Vegas to commence a new life?
The worst offence of the script was to make a suspect out of Robbins in the first place. Nobody is EVER questioning his motivation for such murder: Not the cops, not his wife, not Sean Penn. Maybe he killed her because the girls danced on the bar and disturbed him watching baseball?? Gimme a break!! Or he does plan to get eventual "revenge" on Penn and waits for 19 years to finally kill his child. Of course not. He would have abducted here at the age of 6 or 8 or so. But this he did not. He is actually a very weak suspect. Anybody in his right mind would immediately see that.
Were Penn (and/or Hayden) indeed so underlit NOT to make Robbins at least show them the body of the killed pedophile? Surely a true case of "blind revenge" in the most literal sense...
I have more but I'm running out of space. There are many things I liked in this film. But the script is simply not good enough to make Mystic River a REALLY good film. A wasted opportunity, sadly so.
Panic Room
(2002)
Completely unbelievable
27 March 2006
I am a great admirer of director Fincher's earlier movies The Game and Seven. Fight Club was of lesser quality in my opinion and Panic Room is a complete letdown. Normally I find my IMDb ratings not much out of line with the consensus vote. But here I'm at a great difference. The main issues for me are the abstruse story and the female lead character. The plot outline is unconvincing to start with and the script is not good enough to make the viewer a believer. The gangsters do idiotic things, certainly not what real thieves would do (for example minimize noise). The dialogs are painfully bad to listen to, for example when the gangsters fight among themselves. It all comes across very forced and constructed. Then Jodie Foster is the coldest woman on the planet. I get a deep-freeze in my pants whenever I see her. As a mother she is completely unbelievable in the sense that she might have embraced a man in love to receive a child, and a terrible miscast in this movie. There is no grace, no redeeming charm whatsoever in her performance here. No wonder her movie husband left her! (Actually Foster's last good performance was in Nell, that suited her perfectly.) Hollywood is full of "older" attractive lead actresses who would have been so much better suited to star here and make a terrified mother actually believable: Kim Basinger, Michelle Pfeiffer, Andie McDowell, Deborah Unger (from The Game)... I'm sure I forget to name another 20 top candidates. So please Mr. Fincher, choose your next script carefully and cast a believable woman (again)! You can do better than this. Panic Room just doesn't work!
We Were Soldiers
(2002)
Lousy movie
9 January 2005
Like another viewer has said, it is indeed difficult to write 10 lines on this garbage.
The story may be true or not, this movie was bad. Lame, despite all the fireworks. The music? So boring! Sentimental schmaltz stuff of the worst degree, creating NO atmosphere whatsoever, only seconding the sorry pictures.
By judging from the battle scenes, I expected that at least say 250 out of the 396 or so have died. Instead there were only 71 dead as we learn at the end. Sorry, but I had to laugh, the battle pictures we've been shown by the director seem not correspond to this relatively low casualty count. And of course we never learn how many enemy men were mowed down. This battle has only one side...
Another idiotic scene: One of the first guys (some Lieutenant) coming in with the first wave spots an enemy scout and immediately runs after him for into unknown enemy territory, but not only for a few meters but he keeps on chasing and chasing until finally the men draw fire. Worst of all, he drags all his men with him!! I mean how stupid a military leader can you possibly be?? Again, this may be a true incidence or not, but if a soldier behaves so stupidly, he doesn't deserve any better than getting whacked. I only felt pity for the poor fellows who had to follow their "leader" and got mostly killed in the process as well.
What happened to Madeleine Stowe?? Did she see a plastic surgeon to get her lips siliconed? Not sure, but she looked terribly bad here, suddenly has grown old in her face. And I do not believe that this was due to the "burdened" role she had to perform here. Her character was to forget about anyway, like all the other cliché soldier babes who looked all so good and shiny of course... All BS for me. The only one credible character in this sorry flick was the UPI photographer (Pepper?), the sharpshooter from Private Ryan. I really like the guy, he has a good intensity on screen.
I could go on ranting some more, but I could only repeat what other viewers have said already. I rate this crap a 2 out of 10. I give it 2 only because some (not all!) of the battle scenes seemed credible enough, especially the one night attack where the soldier says he can "smell 'em" and they light up the forest and indeed the enemy is right at them already.
Hamburger Hill is the much, much more touching and engaging film.
The story may be true or not, this movie was bad. Lame, despite all the fireworks. The music? So boring! Sentimental schmaltz stuff of the worst degree, creating NO atmosphere whatsoever, only seconding the sorry pictures.
By judging from the battle scenes, I expected that at least say 250 out of the 396 or so have died. Instead there were only 71 dead as we learn at the end. Sorry, but I had to laugh, the battle pictures we've been shown by the director seem not correspond to this relatively low casualty count. And of course we never learn how many enemy men were mowed down. This battle has only one side...
Another idiotic scene: One of the first guys (some Lieutenant) coming in with the first wave spots an enemy scout and immediately runs after him for into unknown enemy territory, but not only for a few meters but he keeps on chasing and chasing until finally the men draw fire. Worst of all, he drags all his men with him!! I mean how stupid a military leader can you possibly be?? Again, this may be a true incidence or not, but if a soldier behaves so stupidly, he doesn't deserve any better than getting whacked. I only felt pity for the poor fellows who had to follow their "leader" and got mostly killed in the process as well.
What happened to Madeleine Stowe?? Did she see a plastic surgeon to get her lips siliconed? Not sure, but she looked terribly bad here, suddenly has grown old in her face. And I do not believe that this was due to the "burdened" role she had to perform here. Her character was to forget about anyway, like all the other cliché soldier babes who looked all so good and shiny of course... All BS for me. The only one credible character in this sorry flick was the UPI photographer (Pepper?), the sharpshooter from Private Ryan. I really like the guy, he has a good intensity on screen.
I could go on ranting some more, but I could only repeat what other viewers have said already. I rate this crap a 2 out of 10. I give it 2 only because some (not all!) of the battle scenes seemed credible enough, especially the one night attack where the soldier says he can "smell 'em" and they light up the forest and indeed the enemy is right at them already.
Hamburger Hill is the much, much more touching and engaging film.
Planet of the Apes
(2001)
Terrible, terrible, terrible!
2 January 2005
Man, am I glad to have missed this movie in cinema. Just saw it on TV now. I rarely get upset about a movie, but I am now: Terribly uninspiring, un-original and one-dimensional, one-way story, terrible acting, especially Wahlberg (who looks and talks like an idiot most of the time) and the blond chick (Warren?). Actually she is not acting at all but only trying to look good all the time. The only decent performances come from Bonham Carter and her big hulky gorilla companion during the escape (missed his name, some ex-General). Tim Roth is too one-dimensionally "bad" to be of any compelling interest. He should have declined this lame role.
Terrible, senseless and completely out-of-the-blue ending after the (very poor and thin) "story" is concluded already. The costumes/make-ups and production design are good (2001, so no surprise) but do not save this movie at all.
Tim Burton clearly can do better than this. I can't understand what he found in this script as he had a very heavy and uninspired hand here. Complete waste of time and money... utterly disappointing. For me, this Apes is one of the worst Sci-fi movies ever made, and to compare it in any way to the 1968 movie is an offence to the latter.
Terrible, senseless and completely out-of-the-blue ending after the (very poor and thin) "story" is concluded already. The costumes/make-ups and production design are good (2001, so no surprise) but do not save this movie at all.
Tim Burton clearly can do better than this. I can't understand what he found in this script as he had a very heavy and uninspired hand here. Complete waste of time and money... utterly disappointing. For me, this Apes is one of the worst Sci-fi movies ever made, and to compare it in any way to the 1968 movie is an offence to the latter.
Technically outstanding, dramaturgically weak
22 March 2004
I reckon it is because we know of the successful ending to the story that takes all the surprises from the script. I was disappointed nonetheless: Every word spoken is "heavy" and full of "meaning", the battle scene with the riders taking on the elephants is outright stupid-silly. No smart military leader would ever have ordered to attack such foe head-on (and still succeed...). You could bet that in each and every new scene, trouble was only about 30 seconds away. Very annoying. Did Aragon ever smile once? Always looked like having a big tummy ache. Any of the others smiling? OK, Gandalf did once, I think. The end was as kitchy as it could be - and incomprehensible, to me at least: Why would Frodo choose to leave the Shire?? It may be in the book or not, I don't care. This just didn't make any sense.^
Technically of course it was more than state of the art, but even this got me bored eventually. I was glad when this part and the whole series was finally over.
This project would have been better served in a TV series of say 900 minutes or so. Of course, it would have lost the big-screen "oversize" which was nice most of the times. But the movies as long as they were did not do justice to the books. Probably no movie(s) could ever achieve this.
Technically of course it was more than state of the art, but even this got me bored eventually. I was glad when this part and the whole series was finally over.
This project would have been better served in a TV series of say 900 minutes or so. Of course, it would have lost the big-screen "oversize" which was nice most of the times. But the movies as long as they were did not do justice to the books. Probably no movie(s) could ever achieve this.
Tell Your Friends