patrickmmc Reviews

Spectre (I) (2015)

Nothing Like The 007 I Know or Grew Up With - Unfortunately!

[2/10 · 7 November 2015]

I grew up the on the 007 films and books starting in the early 70's. Since then, of course, I have seen every Bond film there is and read almost all of the books. This is far from anything I that grew up with, as were all of the Daniel Craig/007 films. As with the first two, I found very little to like with this one.

The Bond/007 formula has been completely removed from every one of Craig's films, leaving us with little more than just another action film that's hardly engaging. At least with this one there was promise of the 007 gadgets. However, even that was a big disappointment.

The music was equally disappointing and hardly worthy of a Bond film. And though this last film did have the Bond theme, it was only utilized at the beginning and the very end. The remainder of the film's score was less than memorable or complimentary to the experience.

As for the characters, all of them have been redone to fit someone's idea of a new age and not one of them is interesting or enticing.

Whoever put this film and its two predecessors together only wishes they had half the artistic quality, imagination and production capability that it took to produce the first 20 years of Bond and captivate generations to come.

As I come to a close, I'd like to say this last installment was so long and boring that I had a very difficult time staying awake for whole thing. The only reason I tried was because I hoped to see something I might like about the film. Unfortunately my effort was in vain and I did not.

The last thing I'd like to say here is that I wish the folks at Hollywood would quit trying to change and remake everything I grew up with just to impress the new generations. For whatever reason they can't seem to figure out how to do it right and they are failing on an epic scale with every effort.

Chappie (2015)

A Poor Retelling and Fusion of Short Circuit and Robo-Cop

[2/10 · 20 June 2015]

Contrary to many who have left their opinion here, I am not a fan of Blomkamp films. However, I am a sci-fi fan and therefore try to give films like this one a fair opportunity to impress me.

Aside from some big budget effects used in Blomkemp's films, each one, and especially Chappie, have the heart, soul and depth of a B-flick at best. What's most difficult about his films to digest is that all of the characters are barely likable and hardly engaging enough to gain interest. Add to that that all of his films depict a dark and grim future. And finally, Blonkamp puts the "trash" in "Euro-Trash." At the very least, I felt the District 9 and Elysium were pretty much original stories. On the other hand, Chappie was little more than a poor retelling and fusion of predecessors like Short Circuit and Robo-Cop and others. The premise was hardly original.

Sadly, I knew what I was in for before I had seen the film based on the previews. Yet, I still wanted to give the film a chance. All I can say is that I'm glad I waited to view it on DVD. Unlike some of the predecessors this film rips off, I won't ever want to see it again.

Wolves (2014)

Not bad for a B flick

[7/10 · 22 January 2015]

I have to say that much of what has come out over the past 15 years has been lacking in one way or another, but particularly in originality. Additionally, stories always seem to fall short as a majority of the focus is on CGI effects and the sexual appeal to teen hormones.

I thought that this film did a fair job at being original in its plot and story. And though the story was not the greatest, it was different and it was entertaining. Nothing here was over done. As with anything, there was room for improvement, but I liked it just the same.

As for effects, the costumes and makeup were very well done. The stunts were reasonable and plausible for this type of film. Again, not over done.

I would be willing to see a sequel should the producers get the impulse to try again.

If you like werewolves, you might enjoy this film. Being a budget flick, the cost is low enough to own the DVD and not feel a pinch when you're done watching.

Earth to Echo (2014)

First Person Camera Overdone - Terrible Movie

[2/10 · 26 October 2014]

After the first 15 minutes of the film, I wanted to give up on it. Unfortunately I should have followed my instincts, but didn't.

Many have said that this film is a rip-off of E.T.. They couldn't be more right. Add the Blair Witch film style and you have Earth To Echo.

My biggest complaint with this film is trying to watch someone walking around with their shaky video camera throughout the entire movie rather than viewing a film that uses professional camera techniques. It seems that some group of people out their think this is a desirable means of viewing film these days. I say this because I have seen three other films this year using the same technique. Hello people - It Sucks!!! The characters in this film have half the charisma, if that, than those of the legendary E.T.. This film tries to be E.T., but fails and falls flat on it face. First clue, a film that seems to be directed at kids gets a PG rating.

I'll stick with E.T. and forget this awful film in a hurry.

Brick Mansions (2014)

A B Flick At Best, But B Does Not Stand For Believable

[3/10 · 21 September 2014]

This film was certainly a B (budget) flick and not a believable one in the slightest. The action scenes were way beyond belief, every single one. Even if this were a super-hero movie where super human capabilities are expected, the majority of stunts still surpass plausible limits to a somewhat ridiculous level. David Belle has some amazing moves that closely rival those of Jackie Chan, but the tricks go far beyond all possibility which only cheapens his efforts.

Was the film entertaining? For a mindless action film, yes. Does it contain the necessary elements that would keep you coming back to see it again and again? No. It's what I would call disposable entertainment where seeing it once is more than enough time wasted in your life.

It's a shame that this will be considered part of the finale in Paul Walker's acting repertoire because it is by no means one of his best works.

Godzilla (2014)

Badzilla Returns

[1/10 · 17 September 2014]

This has to be the most boring movie I have ever seen. I couldn't stay awake through the film. I had to watch it 4 times just to get to the end. Given the choice between the original cheesy costumed character and this one, I'll take the original every time.

First off, this movie focuses more on the human aspects rather than the creatures. That's unfortunate in itself because the human story was absolutely lifeless and boring.

Second, I hated the fact that once again the producers took major liberties with the appearance of Godzilla. I thought the 1998 version was bad enough where they made him look more like a lizard. This one looks like they combined the head of a turtle or something with who knows what. It just doesn't work. I can't understand why producers continue to take classic icons like this and change them completely just to suit a new generation. It isn't necessary.

Third, after a long wait for the monsters, when you do finally see Godzilla and his nemesis, the majority of the action happens in pitch dark making it very difficult to see.

I saw this movie on DVD and I'm glad I waited because even the expense of the DVD was more than this film is worth. Had I have seen this film at the theater and paid the cost of popcorn and all, I would have really felt ripped off.

I don't recommend this film for new viewers or returning fans. If you must see it, wait for it on cable.

The Lone Ranger (2013)

This Isn't the Lone Ranger I Know, Not Even Similar

[1/10 · 24 August 2014]

This is not the Lone Ranger. It is more of a tongue and cheek spoof that barely reflects even a glimmer of the original legendary character. It isn't even good enough to be called a western.

Why do the folks in Hollywood insist on destroying history with these remakes and then changing them into comedic flops? I can't say, but I for one am very disappointed with most every remake since the early 2000's, most especially this one.

The story of the Lone Ranger and the programs entailed are classic art history. You wouldn't repaint the Mona Lisa and call it a new masterpiece. Don't trash the history that so many of us have lived and grown up with. But that's exactly what Hollywood has done here with this film and so many others of recent.

I don't even see how newcomers can find this appealing. Perhaps they just love Johnny Depp so much that anything he does seems great. I really don't know and can't explain the reviews that give high praise to this film. It is undeserving no matter how you slice it. Even the professional critics shot this one down. Many say don't believe the critics. I say do! Stay away from this and don't give Hollywood any further reason to create any future disasters like it.

The Spectacular Spider-Man (2008–2009)

Don't Get The Hype

[1/10 · 24 August 2014]

I have read all 26 reviews here and I am wondering what these people are thinking and in fact, I'm wondering too what the producers of this cheesy product where thinking. Ask me, I have no doubt as to why the program was canceled. The drawing and animation are absolutely horrible and appear to be designed by someone in elementary school for kindergarteners. The drawing and animation in the 60's cartoon, when it was all done by hand, are exceedingly better than this crap. The 90's cartoon series definitely blows this away. Many of the reviews here state opinions of this show being better than any others ever produced. How anyone who is an adult or nearing adulthood could think that this tripe is better is beyond me. It's crap, plain and simple.

The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (2014)

Okay For A Day At The Movies

[3/10 · 23 August 2014]

I can't talk about the Amazing Spider-Man 2 without mentioning the first film of this new franchise and it's predecessors in the first franchise at the same time. The biggest disappointment I found with all of these films is that the origin and characteristics of Spider-Man and accompanying characters have been altered from those of the original comics.

In the original comics, Peter Parker was a college student working on a project that involved radio activity. During testing, a normal spider gets caught in the way of the radiation and then winds up biting Peter, causing him to transform into our hero. The spider then goes off and dies. Both of the new franchises have chosen to change the way that the spider becomes capable of transforming a person into a super-human. Furthermore, the original story eliminates the possibility of anyone else encountering the same circumstance. In the first and second stories, it's feasible that other people could be bitten and become super-human just like Peter. In fact, in this film of the second franchise, they use this possibility to create the Green Goblin which is another character origin alteration and disappointment.

As far as it goes, the first franchise stayed closest to the original story line with one significant difference being that our new Spider-Man could spin webs directly from his wrists. In the original story, Peter, being a science major, had to develop web shooters to enhance his new physical capabilities. The shooters depended on web fluid cartridges and this was part of his limitations during villain battles. In both franchises, this fact was either significantly altered or just omitted.

Casting in both franchises had it's ups and downs. In the first franchise, I wasn't sure about Toby McGuire as Spider-Man. Surprisingly, in the first film, I thought he did exceptionally well. I can't say as much for the second and third installments. The whole emotional break-down he goes through in each felt ridiculous and painful. As for the other characters portrayed in the first installment, I thought a really good job was done in the first movie, but the follow ups weren't as well received.

In the second franchise we have Peter Parker/Spider-Man played by Andrew Garfield. Garfield is a taller, thinner and more confident character in contrast with McGuire. Though I wasn't too sure how to accept him in this role, all in all, I thought he did pretty good as well. I definitely liked his improved confidence over McGuire's character, but I did have a hard time accepting his thinner physique.

This franchise uses Sally Field playing the role of Aunt May. To me, this was a big mistake as Sally just doesn't fit the bill of the original character from the comics. Neither her script or her appearance and persona worked for me. Rosemary Harris was a far better Aunt May in the first franchise.

In the first film of this franchise, I thought the Lizard was done well. I can't remember his comic origin, but I liked the character and the effects used to bring him to life.

In this film, I can't say that I liked any of the villains. Again, big alterations to their origins and or characteristics where executed. Electro's character from origin to end was cheesy to say the least. The Rhino was majorly ridiculous and completely altered from the original comics. In this story Rhino is turned into a man in a robotic suit. This was nothing like the original where he was simply large, powerful and fast and wore a protective suit that looked like a rhino. In fact, in both franchises, the choice to alter villain costumes for the Goblin and the Rhino into metallic and/or robotic suites was again an unwanted disappointment.

I could go on and on comparing the two franchises and knit-picking them for their shortcomings. However, its best to say that I was impressed with both at the start. Unfortunately, as with the first franchise and its follow-ups to the first film, I wasn't terribly excited with the second installment in this latest franchise. It was okay for a day at the movies, but it isn't a film I will want to see over and over again.

Before closing this review, there is one thing I would like to add. I don't know about anyone else, but I'm growing rather tired of seeing Stan Lee do his little cameo appearances in every one of the Marvel films. It only increases the cheese factor.

Batman: Assault on Arkham (2014 Video)

I Wish I Could Return The DVD Purchase

[1/10 · 14 August 2014]

This film comes with a PG rating because it contains mature content. Let's just clear that up now. There is absolutely nothing mature about this film what so ever. You do have occasional profanity, sex and some routine brief nudity. However, it is all unnecessary and not a bit of it lends to a mature or anything remotely intelligent of a story. The dialog is laughable at best, or really just plain pathetic, and many of the main characters are utterly ridiculous rip offs of existing heroes and villains in the comic world. Harley Quinn makes you want to rip your ears off after 5 minutes of listening to her speak. And though the title states that this is a Batman film, Batman barely makes an appearance throughout most of the program. The main focus is on bringing a group of lackluster villains to light. You'll quickly want to push them all right back into the closet. The only way you will enjoy this film is if you are a pathetic and perverse juvenile delinquent who has no friends and no possibility of ever forming normal relationships with people in general. If you don't fit that bill, save your money and leave this film on the shelf for the other suckers, and by all means keep this away from your children.

Lucy (I) (2014)

Not The Worst, But Certainly Not The Best Either

[3/10 · 28 July 2014]

After weeks of waiting for what looked like a smash hit, sadly this film did not reach the bar that was anticipated. The story was haphazard and bizarre and in my opinion absolutely implausible. The film was a grim shadow of the action packed thrill ride portrayed by the trailers. To ice the cake, the ending was a complete let-down that left you scratching your head and asking "that was it?". For a film that seems to be an intelligent concept about the intelligence of mankind and the possibility of utilizing 100% of the human brain, the overall feeling of this film is just plain ignorance, and it is yet another experience best saved for the cheapest options like DVD or the cable.

Transformers: Age of Extinction (2014)

I have only myself to blame for viewing another Michael Bay film

[3/10 · 28 July 2014]

I only give this film a 3 because the effects are reasonably well done. Other than that, the film is just another Michael Bay adolescent hormone teaser for teens with explosions all around. The original cartoons had more creativity and character than this bag of crap. I thought with Mark Wahlberg replacing Shia, we might actually see something better than the last three disappointments. Sadly, I was wrong. For me, this is the last Michael Bay film I will ever watch, whether it be in the theater, on DVD or on cable. It's my opinion that Bay needs to be kicked off of the set and never allowed to return again. If you happen to miss this film, you won't have missed much. Save your cash for something more entertaining.

RoboCop (2014)

Another Remake Gone Bad

[2/10 · 21 June 2014]

I am giving this movie a 2 instead of a 1 because it was at the least popcorn fair. I have too many problems with this film to go into great detail. However, for starters, Robocop looks more like the Black Ninja from GI Joe. The attempt to remake the film is a complete rip-off of the original and just looks like all the other action films of recent. The fact that they changed the story around just to get it out the door wasn't well appreciated either, no more than the remake of Total Recall. I can't help wondering who's running the show anymore. It's like the folks in Hollywood have lost all creativity and imagination. The story was shallow and the characters were cardboard cutouts of the original cast. Another complaint about Robo was the decision to leave one hand human. Why??? His entire body was supposedly destroyed, yet his one hand managed to escape the damage of the blast that put him in his position. Furthermore, another issue that comes to question is his face. Again, this Robocop came to be as a result of an explosion when he opens his car door. Some how his face, along with one hand are miraculously preserved while the rest of his body is so damaged and burned that a robotic cybernetic suit is the only way to save him. Come on!!! The original Robocop gave you the true sense that he was robotic with quite reasonable acting from Peter Weller. This guy is super ninja as he leaps tall buildings in a single bound in his now black and sleek robo-suit. I guarantee that this is another film among so many today that will soon be forgotten by all and will not get attention again. I'm not saying don't see the film. What I am saying is don't spend a lot doing it.

The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou (2004)

A Dry and Dull Film About Water And Who Knows What Else

[1/10 · 21 June 2014]

This film ranks at the top of most awful films in history. Though it claims to be a comedy, there is little to no humor in it what so ever. An all star cast lures you in and then director/writer Wes Anderson kills you with a pointless story, bad music, and an absolute boredom you can't wait to have come to an end. The film is so bad, it's a painful affliction to all senses. Leave this film on the shelf and forget that you ever heard it's name. For those who gave this film a high rating, they are either psychotic and whacked out of their heads on drugs, or they are paid by the producers in an attempt to polish a turd.

Justice League: War (2014 Video)

Injustice To The Justice League

[6 February 2014]

I bought this film for my kids thinking they would enjoy some superhero entertainment. I sat down to watch this with my 9 year old son and in the first five minutes I wanted to turn it off and never air it again. During that first five minutes a civilian, Batman and Green Lantern all had to use profanity as if to make the program more adult like. More juvenile is more like it. It only gets worse when enters Wonder Woman, who is being protested in front of the White House and told that she dresses like a whore. Then she lassos the main name caller, forcing him to tell the truth and that he's a cross dresser who enjoys dressing just like her. I can't believe how bad the media has gotten these days! Is all this crude and immoral behavior really necessary to entertain people anymore? If that isn't bad enough, the entire story line and script are less than a sophomoric effort and the characters are hardly icons worth looking up to. Instead they are all self centered, egotistical, buffoons acting more like street punks. This is a real shame and it will be the last time I buy an animated feature like this for my kids. I don't teach my children to curse and act like that and I don't expect the media to either. It certainly isn't the superhero crew I grew up with and wanted to be like when I was a kid.

Star Trek Into Darkness (2013)

Trekked Right Out The Door

[1/10 · 10 September 2013]

This movie was so painful to watch, I trekked right out of the theater just barley half way through. I grew up with Star Trek, and anyone else who grew up with it will have a hard time sitting through this garbage. Abrams has taken every liberty possible to create some warped idea of what he thinks Star Trek should be. He gives no devotion to the original series and insults the intelligence of all who venture to his films, not just Star Trek. Abrams should be banned from making movies ever again. I'm not sure who he thinks he is, but original and creative, he is not. His works are adolescent at best. His characters are little more than the same. Speaking of adolescent, Christopher Pine portrays Kirk as an over indulged, spoiled brat of a punk teenager, and destroys the suave, confident and capable character made by William Shatner. Abrams' attempt to make Spock more human and add romance to his character is outrageous and ridiculously unnecessary. The entire cast tries hard to portray the original crew, but fall hard on their faces in this mindless plethora of nothing but video game action and explosions. Again, special effects take front seat while story and plot fall far to the back. Thanks JJ for ruining my and so many other's memory of a great and classic piece of sci-fi history.

Man of Steel (2013)

Don't Take The Kids

[2/10 · 14 June 2013]

Superman - Who is he intended for? Well, growing up he was a kid's hero. Certainly adults could also enjoy the stories too. This film is not for children. It also isn't for the intelligent adult. For the 2+ hours running time of this film, they had to take at least 5 or so minutes to ruin the entire movie for kids by throwing in several words that I would not want my children repeating, that includes di**, and fu**, just to name a couple that were repeated more than once. Why? All other things aside, this was a big disappointment considering that many parents will be taking their kids to see this. It's little wonder why and how morals are disappearing rapidly. I hardly see the point of putting such language into what many will feel is a family film. The use of the language was absolutely unnecessary and did nothing to enhance the experience.

I also did not find the movie engaging in the least. Not one character in this film gave an opportunity to become connected. This can be attributed to the fact that the sequences are haphazard at best. The story is shallow and poorly thought out. The history of Superman was completely destroyed by this production. At best, and as usual here lately, the film relied mainly on its CGI effects to impress the audience and little else. The only real creativity came from the computer geeks. Those who need little more than eye candy to be entertained will find themselves well dazzled by the flair of the CGI. Other than that there is nothing worth talking about in this film.

Personally, I couldn't wait for the film to end. Being old enough to have read comic books and to have seen nearly every Superman creation on the TV and silver screen, this movie positively did all it could to destroy every foundation Superman stood on.

This movie also rips off a number of recent films. The Matrix is the first and main film that seems to be ripped off here. Not only did they steal scenes and ideas from the Matrix, they also steel the actors, including Lawrence Fishburn and others. The ships used here were almost complete copies from the recent War of The Worlds film. Certain sound effects were copied as well. Another film that ideas and concepts were stolen from is Riddick. If I spent enough time thinking about it, I'm sure that I could name a few more.

On a final note, this movie only reaffirms my belief that those running Hollywood these days have no imagination or creativity. It's a shame that with today's technology we can't get a film with both the great effects that are now possible and a great and well thought out story too. Unfortunately, effects are all that we seem to get and it doesn't look like that's going to change any time soon. Personally, I'd rather go back to the older products with less capable and sometimes even cheesy graphics, simply because the stories are far more intelligent and superior.

Kick-Ass (2010)

Not For Kids and Not For Adults Either

[1/10 · 9 April 2013]

Assuming this film is for kids and if you are concerned about morality then keep your kids away from this film.

The title sells its content. We teach our kids what language is acceptable and what is not. I do believe that the second word of this title falls into the unacceptable category. The content within the film falls nothing short of the same. The film is loaded with:

1. excessive violence, 2. bad language (from kids), 3. and sexual innuendos.

I don't recommend this film for anyone. Save your money for something more appropriate and entertaining.

Total Recall (I) (2012)

Total Waste

[1/10 · 19 December 2012]

I'm asking myself, "what are the people in Hollywood thinking these days?" When I first heard that Total Recall was being remade, I thought, how can they remake a film that was so perfectly done already. When the 1990 version hit the screen, it was cutting edge and it blew your mind. You weren't sure what reality was real all the way to the end. The film is now a classic. Why anyone thought they could out do what had been crafted so well is beyond me. The fact is that this latest release comes up as a complete mess. As with so many recent movies, I couldn't wait for the end. Not only does the film fail to deliver anything close to its original, it seems to steal a lot from so many other films. Nothing is original here, and nothing is very impressive. This film feels like a mash up of Blade Runner, Star Wars, I-Robot, The Matrix, and a few others, and of course, Total Recall (1990). Acting is little more than fair, the script is weak, and as usual, the CGI and special effects appear to be the main focus and are way overdone. Don't even waste your money on the DVD. Order a pay-per-view if you must see it. If you're a fan of the original, be well prepared for disappointment.

Underworld: Awakening (2012)

Underworld: Underbaked

[3/10 · 22 January 2012]

Like most here, I'd have to say that I was pretty excited to see a new Underworld coming to the screen. My excitement was quickly snuffed out by disappointment from the very beginning and all the way up through the very end. This movie was full of undesirable 3D gimmicks, poor and sloppy use of CGI, and a weak story line. Once again, we've been given a film that was quickly thrown together for an additional squeeze on the franchise name, and a final milking of the of a reasonable fan base. This film didn't last more than 1.5 hours, leaving the audience with an underdeveloped story line and cast of characters. I wasn't too happy with a majority of the character selections. No one seemed to fill their role well. The acting/directing was mediocre at best. As for the CGI, many of the scenes seemed like a under-budgeted video game rather than a well designed special effect. Rest assured, this film will not win any awards and we've probably seen the last installment as this film just seemed as though it was coming for it's last breath of air before going under completely. At best, you can add this one to the long list of pop-corn entertainers best viewed on a rainy day when nothing better is available to do.

Drive (I) (2011)

Drive - Some

[19 September 2011]

First, I'd like to say that any review over 2 regarding this movie must be receiving compensation in some way because this was bar-none the worst movie of the year and then some.

The previews lure in viewers with a promise of action and thrills. This film was very far from anything of the likes. Nothing could be more slow except maybe watching molasses travel up hill on a cold day.

The actors seemed as though they were constantly waiting for a cue to say their lines. One would speak, then a few moments pass, then a reply from the other. This was the norm throughout the film.

Our main actor has absolutely no emotion what-so-ever and very little dialogue. The others weren't much different.

There are those here who believe this film is intended to be a retro film compared to those of the 80's. It's nothing of the sort. The only thing retro here was the main actor's choice in cars. I'm not sure what the intention of this film is. It appeared to me to be the work of an over indulged amateur.

Then there's the premise that this film is about driving. There are maybe 5 scenes that actually involve driving and those are quite lack-luster to say the least.

Do yourself a favor, save your cash at the box office or even with DVD. Stay away from this film.

If I hadn't been with others, I would have walked out on this stinker within the first 20 minutes. Out of the 5 people I saw the film with, not one of us enjoyed it. The consensus was noticeably the same among the 20 or so other people sitting in the theater with us.

Old Dogs (I) (2009)

Sorry....

[1/10 · 29 July 2010]

I'm sorry people if I insult anyone here, but this is one of the worst films I have seen yet. I have to wonder what is so disturbingly wrong with people that anyone could actually believe this to be anything but crap? Only an extremely immature mind could find this film to be humorous. What is wrong with today's film producers? I have to ask this too... When did it become necessary to include a multitude of crude and rude scenes in order to attempt to amuse children? That question posed... What audience is this film intended for anyway? It has a PG rating for the crude and rude scenes, which make up most of the entire content. So is it meant for adults? Teens wouldn't like it! PG says its not for children. So who the H#$% is this film intended for? I don't know, but its becoming routine for all "children's/family films" to have this PG rating. That should tell most people something right there.

Folks, Disney had a mission when he began his empire, to make films that were clean and decent "family oriented" entertainment. This film is nothing of the sort. The material is so "over the top" that instead of being anything close to funny, it is just plain ridiculous and warped.

If you have half a brain in your head, don't waste your time on this film and don't pollute your children's' minds with it either.

2012 (I) (2009)

Not Bad, Well Worth Seeing...

[7/10 · 16 November 2009]

I've taken the time to write a number of reviews here. This was usually because I thought a film was so bad that I just felt compelled to share my opinions. My comment today is quite the contrary.

I have to say that this is one of few films that I have liked in recent past. It wasn't the greatest I've ever seen, and many of the escape scenes were highly implausible. However, what this film did do was keep me on the edge of my seat. Action and suspense were the true highlights here.

Everybody played their role well. There were a few characters that I might have picked differently for their parts. But again, not bad.

Effects were spectacular. The end of the world looked quite real. As morbid as that might sound, the effects were great. This is one time I can't complain too much about CGI.

Some of the events were a little too convenient or again implausible. But I repeat, not bad. It's expected that with a film like this, imagination needs to stretch a little bit to work in the dramatics. I believe that this film has just about all the right ingredients to make it worth while.

One thing here, and I have to say that I appreciated this... Blood and guts were not the focus of this work. If you expect to see a lot of death and dismemberment with blood all around, you are in for a let down. You won't see much of the carnage up close in this film. The focus here is more on the survival of the main characters and civilization along with a race against the clock.

So all in all, I give this film a rating of 7/10. I'd see it again and will be awaiting its release on DVD. Hopefully it's only fiction!

Push (2009)

Rips Off A Little From A Lot - But Not Too Terrible

[5/10 · 18 February 2009]

Usually I am very critical of films, especially today's works. However, I can't be too hard on this one. It was an enjoyable film and a reasonable escape from reality.

The biggest problem with "Push" is that it rips off everything from "Blade Runner" to "Heroes," "4400," "Star Wars" and the likes. Mostly though, this film is Stephen King's "Fire Starter" in a whole new wrapper with some new and improved effects.

The concept has undoubtedly been realized before. The plot is fair to put it best, and the characters are for the most part - likable and interesting. The effects are pretty good too. Sadly, the story is a little weak, but not terrible.

For a pass time and some popcorn, the film is favorable. But, there probably won't be any awards won here. If you are really critical about movies and how you spend your money, you may wish to wait for DVD. Otherwise, if you just need something to do and you want to waste some time in fantasy land, check it out at the theaters.

Taken (I) (2008)

Pretty Damn Good Action Flick!

[8/10 · 18 February 2009]

I will have to say that I thought "Taken" was a pretty good action flick. Once it get's going, just about 15-20 minutes into the film, the action becomes fast paced and non-stop all the way to the end.

Liam Neeson does a good job here playing the tough ex-operative. Almost everything is believable. Although, there are some minor points where plausibility is lost. Certain aspects of the film are almost too convenient as well as rushed. That's the worst I can say here.

All in all, the film keeps you on the edge of your seat and doesn't let you down for a second. That being said, there is some room for improvement, but a pretty good film over all.

I don't know if I would say that it tops the Bourne films. That's a gray area for me. What I can say is that most will enjoy it and will not be disappointed.