Afflock's Reviews

Ready Player One (2018)

9/10

Very good film. Fast pacing and engaging storytelling makes the time fly.

30 March 2018

The storytelling has Spielberg's touch. The visual affects are top notch by ILM and made me realize how much CGI has been improving from them. The IMAX 3D was rendered well and not the over-the-top in your face variety but added to the storytelling and wonder of the OASIS. It is best to forget you read the book when seeing the movie, as many aspects were adjusted for the medium. Though, the author of the book Earnest Cline was a screenwriter and kept the concepts, many aspects were altered for storytelling reasons. Felt like Ready Player One was inspired by the book but only loosely based on it. It did keep much of the nostalgia, but with fewer expositions, and expanded the time period for the references to be more relevant to younger audiences.

The movie did feel compressed to keep the action and pacing steady, which caused some things to be left unexplained, though it benefits the movie experience. It is a good popcorn flick and will stir conversations with friends afterwards. Can see how the DVD will be popular to pause scenes to find all the Easter Eggs.

While the only real negatives come from comparing book to movie, which is the case with almost any screen adaptation of a book, this is a solid movie on its own and worth watching and would recommend the IMAX 3D format.

1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

McHale's Navy (1997)

2/10

Torpedo'd quickly and sank

11 November 2013

It was hard to tell if they were trying to be "so bad that it was funny" or if it was just that bad. The movie suffers from continuity issues to incorrect uniforms and not being funny. Special effects were low budget. They did not try to disguise that models were being blown up or that sets did not make sense.

The cast has several familiar faces but the acting was below standard. The characters were too cartoonish and over exaggerated. Some plot mechanics are stretched too thin to be believable. It is OK to be unreal in fiction, but the audience needs to believe the story. That aspect was not accomplished.

Not the worst movie but it is a bad one. It has very little to do with the namesake 1960's TV show.

1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

White House Down (2013)

5/10

Hollywood Movie Down

6 July 2013

Warning: Spoilers

This may contain minor spoilers of certain action sequences but not plot.

White House Down is similar to Olympus Has Fallen and Die Hard, minus logic, reason, character development, good acting (ok, Olympus Has Fallen has acting issue as well), and with cheesy lines and plot mechanics. It does have a level of entertainment value with a few characters that stood out as interesting. There are some logical, reasoning, and plot mechanics that have flaws which had me raising my hands and asking "what the ...?" Aspects of the film are noticeably forced.

The antagonist hires help to assist with their diabolical plan which felt more like "Despicable Me" henchman than trained mercenaries. It has the Hollywood obligatory bad guys who can't hit the side of a barn with an automatic weapon while inside the barn. One of the main villains and a good guy say the hired help are all "highly trained". This sets up an expectation. But low and behold a city police man, formerly a Marine, bested them all with Spray and Pray. Really? Then there is the President who refuses to leave the White House under control of bad guys because his action hero savior won't leave so he can save his daughter. Seriously?? Apparently people can walk into the White House and start shooting guards and Secret Service and no one will use a radio to call it in until they check it out first and get shot - and not fire a return shot - plus there seems to be no cameras in the White House. A Secret Service vehicle mounted with a .50 caliber chain gun at less than a car length away and continually fires for a short chase scene and hit the good guy's car about a dozen or so times. Hmmm.... 1k rounds + per minute for 2 min and only a few hit. Then when it is turned on a person at point blank range . . . well it kept it's PG rating by avoiding realism, the operative word here is blank(s).

Did I mention this car chase scene involving the President's limo was witnessed by 100's of Army Soldiers with tanks and they did nothing? Or that a non-armor piercing RPG could stop an Abrams A-1 tank? In the previews you see Air Force One being hit with a missile - which was fired from a Missile Sub in the Atlantic and travels to the skies over Ohio in about 30 sec and no one on Air Force One knew it until a couple seconds before it hit?? No counter measures. Plus the situation room in the Pentagon knew it was launching before it left the Missile Sub, but apparently the Pentagon did not know the location of Air Force one, they had to guess what the "modified 747" was (which has a fighter escort visible on radar, and per the radar shown in the movie, and also was almost on top of the largest US Air Force base in the world) only seconds before it hit, but no one told Air Force One a missile was coming. Did I mention in the end the President walked through a cadre of on-air reporters who did not notice him? Just so he could say a few words to the hero, who was standing beside Marine One preparing to take off with the President? His Secret Service call sign should have been "Mr. Cellophane".

This movie is full of illogical and irrational behavior. There is much more but would encroach as plot spoilers (such as helicopters flying at physics/safety defying angles and altitudes, and jets taking 6 min for a 3 min flight and pilots defying orders because of something they saw miles away through buildings and trees while flying at tree top altitude near supersonic speeds).

While it is a shoot-em-up movie and has some decent special affects and action, I found the flaws in rational behavior, logic, and reason to be too distracting and forced.

Rent it if you wish as a popcorn action movie, but save your money for a more enjoyable movie admission ticket.

3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Now You See Me (I) (2013)

10/10

Very entertaining with some originality

31 May 2013

Just caught the film on Friday opening weekend. To sum it up in one word is "entertaining". It has the special affects you would expect from ILM behind the scenes. While a few plot mechanism may seem familiar, there is enough original content and spin that it will keep your attention throughout. It has light humor throughout which keeps the experience light hearted. The strong points are the script, acting, directing, cinematography, and visual affects. Yes, it is about stage magicians, but movie magic is used to keep the illusion alive and not actual stage theatrics. The only noticeable weak point is it has potential to be a little bit better in execution of some of the plot twist and it keeps a few important details a little too subtle for one viewing for some viewers.

It is a story driven film and not so much a character driven story. There is enough character development to make sense but not balanced enough to feel as engaged to every character. You will understand the characters but may not root for them as much as I'd like. Morgan Freeman certainly holds the screen well and his lines keep people up to speed if they miss something. His character is something of an in movie narrator, but done well from a writing and acting perspective. Jessie Eisenburg's character is also entertaining and engaging as one of the Four Horsemen (the name of the magical stage performers).

It has multiple plot twist, some big and some small. These keep you engaged and trying to guess the next move or explain what just happened. A good film to watch with friends and talk about afterwards.

It has a good mass appeal and has only a little cussing (3 words I can remember), violence (from car chases), or intense scenes (magic tricks gone wrong where possible bodily harm is implied but not seen) to not keep the younger viewers away. The plot twist may be too complicated for non-teenager youth. Overall it is very entertaining.

14 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Jack Reacher (2012)

9/10

Entertaining , engaging, and well done

21 December 2012

Jack Reacher is entertaining and a solid film. It is a crime drama genre with some action and a little more humor. It is a story driven film with enough character development to make sense, but leaves some mystery about the main character Jack Reacher to keep it interesting. Having not read the books it is based on, the story was well done enough that I would want to see any future installments of the series. While the lead actor, Tom Cruise, is believable in the role he would not have to continue playing the lead character to keep the story interesting. He added to the film and made the character believable but the character Jack Reacher is interesting enough that other actors could do a decent enough job, as it is seen in the James Bond franchise.

It is worth adding that Tom Cruise did such a good job in the role it was possible to forget who the actor was, and enjoy and believe the character; though the character was given some of Tom's charisma, and it did work for the character.

As a whole, the film is reminiscent of a high budget TV crime drama but in movie form. The action scenes are there to drive the story along and not over the top but kept down to earth (i.e. obeys the laws of physics) as much as Hollywood can. It has a few plot twist in the revealing of the crime mystery. The acting is believably good (Robert Duvall is noteworthy in his small role that could be argued he equaled or did better than Tom Cruise's performance). Rosamund Pike also did a good job acting and making the character work for the film. The directing, cinematography, editing, soundtrack, and screenplay writing are all above average and better than the sum of their parts. Meaning there is positive synergy at work. It is refreshing to experience a film out of Hollywood that keeps me interested the whole time and not critiquing it during the viewing.

I would recommend this film to anyone who likes the crime/mystery drama genre or who just likes the actors involved. It is entertaining, engaging, and a good 2 hour 11 min of escapism.

19 out of 36 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012)

9/10

Review of the adaptation and the HFR 3D

15 December 2012

Many reviews from the professional or amateur film critics have already gone over the story and mechanics. Wanted to write a general overview of the entertainment value and if the 3D is worth viewing.

Peter Jackson used additional writings of J.R.R. Token to make this film. The author wrote prolifically in the LoTR trilogy, epilogues, and works not published about the events of this story and Peter Jackson has added them to the film. This makes it longer than the book would have been on its own. It adds to the story but there are elements that were added by the screenwriters. The movie felt a little too long partly from the added story and that the source material is character driven more than action driven. It is an entertaining film and tells a good story. The acting is up to the high standards of the LoTR trilogy. It has more humor and is lighter in its theme, cinematography, and tone. It was written as a children's story but has been adapted to be more PG-13 with the fight scenes showing violence and blood in a realistic way.

I was able to catch the film in the High Frame Rate (HFR) 3D version (non-IMAX). The HFR 3D is filmed and shown as 48 Frames Per Second (FPS) as opposed to the movie industry standard 24 FPS. There is a noticeable difference. One nice part to this is it carries the same ticket price as standard 3D, no premium like the IMAX 3D. Regular 3D can darken the film a little. The HFR 3D was very bright and clear. It has a higher immersion affect than standard 3D. The best way to describe it is with an analogy, HFR 3D is to 3D what a standard CRT (tube) TV is to 1080P High Definition LED TV. It is much sharper and brighter. Special affects and makeup/costumes are more visible and sharp. There did appear to have a small negative to this, it is easier to spot CGI affects and makeup. The dwarf's bald caps and some actor's makeup were noticeable. It did take a little while to get used to how it changed the picture. For the movie buffs who understand the technical side, it appears as if no filter was used on the camera, it had a home video camera sharpness to it that lacked the smoothing of the images for the sets and actors. Though, the outdoor scenes were much more spectacular. The Shire was incredible! The mountain scenes were also incredible. Certain special affects were improved with the HFR 3D while others were more noticeable.

The HFR 3D is new technology to movie theaters and may not be for everyone, yet. If you are going to see it more than once in a theater, would suggest seeing it once in this form to decide for yourself. For me, it has many of the same strengths and weaknesses of HDTV, and the HFR 3D does look High Definition.

10 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Dark Knight Rises (2012)

10/10

Uncanily solid for an action movie

20 July 2012

The Dark Night Rises met up to high expectations. If opening night (midnight showing) is any indication, it will be in the hunt to break box office records. The theater opened all 24 screens for the midnight showing and sold out most or all from what I could tell.

Plot synopsis has been done many times already, so here is my take on how it went. The story line was developed and complex enough to keep you intrigued but not messy. There are a few plot twist that were not telegraphed and mostly unexpected. The acting was very good with rewarding character development, even the characters without a lot of screen time. Christian Bale and Tom Hardy carried the movie surprisingly well with Micheal Cain, Morgan Freeman, and Anne Hathaway putting in terrific effort in forming believable and heart felt characters. I would not be surprised if this action flick gets at least one nomination for best actor/supporting actor.

There are the obligatory explosions and cool gadgets done with the solid FX one would expect from a high budget movie. A couple of the action scenes did have a slightly unbelievable premises but nothing distracting for the average movie goer.

Cinematography and sound were above average and helped make the film feel epic. It is the last movie in the trilogy and it ended in a way to wrap up the story well. The ending did leave a few things to the audience's imagination, but not in a disappointing way.

A solid film that rises above what action movies typically delivers. Great story, great character development, and very good acting. An epic film worth watching and highly recommended.

2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Dollhouse (2009–2010)

10/10

Another amazing Joss Whedon creation

21 May 2012

Joss has put out some solid work with Buffy, Angel, and Firefly. Currently watching the series on Netflix and am addicted to it.

It is/was one of the better shows on TV. Sadly the network executives did not get this show, as they missed it with Firefly as well.

Doll House is creative, different, drama, light Sci-Fi, and part mystery. Very well written and cast. The characters, such as Topher is a likable geek, are well developed. The "dolls" are played by gifted actors who do well in portraying multiple roles in each episode.

There are many guest appearances from cast members from Firefly and Battle Star Galactica (SyFy).

Would suggest this series to any fan of the above mentioned shows.

It would be PG-13 for adult themed content and mild violence. There is good material for Joss Whedon to make a movie out of it like he did with Serenity to wrap up the Firefly story line.

11 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Battleship (2012)

5/10

Like the game it was 2 dimensional

19 May 2012

It is popcorn summer movie fodder. Big on FX (though 2 brief scenes were not up to par), sound, explosions, and action. It fell short on story, character development, acting, obeying the laws of physics, the Turing Test, and continuity with the military theme.

I say the Turing Test as there was one character that just did not fit and had no idea why they were there. Think Jar Jar Binks. They were annoying and useless.

Liam Neesen did the most "acting". It did feel a little like a Michael Bay movie. Transformer(ish) on the alien ships. Though they were dumbed down to fit the story.

There were flaws. Unanswered story mechanics. Continuity with the military was very flawed. As a former Navy guy they really bothered me. Had me saying WTH?! often. Doubt most will notice them who were not former military.

Overall it felt like a 16yr old wrote the script. Maybe that was the target audience?

0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Bridesmaids (I) (2011)

9/10

Surprisingly good, light hearted, and very funny.

4 September 2011

Have not laughed this much in a move for a long time.

Took my female friend, I'm a guy, to see this movie as she has been wanting to see it. Heard good things about it.

We saw it at a second run theatre and it was still very well attended.

This is a very funny movie from the female perspective, which is a refreshing take as many recent wedding movies have been from the male perspective. It is male friendly, in that the jokes are not too much inside jokes only women would get. There may have been a few but everyone enjoyed it.

It is a very funny movie. There are a lot of jokes tossed around and a few are easy to miss. The foul language was used to make a joke or a point, it was not like some films that just cuss to establish a "tough" character, here it was for comedic affect.

The ensemble cast each was a different personality that a person would have to deal with in a wedding party. The writing really worked the dynamics well to provide character development that lead to more laughs. It was over the top at times, but intentionally so and did not take itself too seriously.

Go see it with friends. You will have a good laugh-out-loud time and something to talk about afterwards. There is something to be said about experiencing a good comedy in a movie theatre with other people. It is more enjoyable when you are laughing with other people. Know I probably embarrassed my friend by how loud I was laughing and spilled our drink from a "OMG she did not just say that" moment.

There is one extra scene after the movie ends before the credits. Was hoping there was something after the credits as it is becoming more common, but unfortunately it was all before the credits and after the movie.

0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 (2011)

Good Film. Not true to the source material

24 July 2011

There are a lot of comments describing how the film deviated from the book.

As a movie it was good in its own right. Solid special affects, very good acting, and it did tie up some sub-plot lines, though not in the order they were revealed in the book or with enough back story to give the sense of grandeur.

Fans of the books may be disappointed by the last movie in the franchise. After reading many comments then seeing the movie, those critical of the movie vs the book have a valid argument of important details being skipped or casually mentioned.

It has potential to be a truly epic film. It fell short by limiting some key plot mechanics, such as the Deathly Hollows, and how Harry and Dumbledore were connected beyond just being at Hogwarts.

Certainly a movie worth seeing on the big screen. It is more for those who followed the movies and not the books. This condition is not unique to Harry Potter, but to any movie adaptation of a good book.

If you liked the movies and not read the books, it is worth the time to get the books. The movie franchise was successful for a reason.

0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Morning Glory (2010)

8/10

Funny and casual fun

4 December 2010

Morning Glory is about an ambitious small town producer, named Becky Fuller, of a slightly corny morning show. She moves up to a major network's failing morning program that needs serious help. The choice of bringing in Harrison Ford's character was a brilliant and cunning move. The chemistry between Diane Keaton an Harrison Ford is worth seeing this film for. They are the comic relief which get the biggest laughs.

Jeff Goldblum provided a good mix to the cast and helped give the film a more dynamic impact. His supporting role was not a major character but his performance was enjoyable and provided a good character to move the plot along.

There are some less than perfect aspects about the script. The main character Becky is a little too caffeinated. This is explained in the character development but could have been tweaked to a more believable character. Some of the plot mechanism seemed forced. Such as Becky Fuller's interview with another morning show. It made sense for the story, but in execution it felt more like a plot device than part of the story. The acting is enjoyable and the directing was well done.

This is a fun movie and worth seeing after you catch the block busters on your list.

2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Burlesque (I) (2010)

9/10

Entertaining and fun

4 December 2010

The biggest surprise for me was Christine Aguilera's performance as an actress. She did very well. There are many actors who get regular gigs and have less talent. She was able to show off her range as a singer. She proved she is not just a Pop singer. For her debut in acting on the big screen, she did a really good job.

Cher is showing her age but still put out a solid acting and singing performance. Other than the two main actresses, there are two actors who really kept the film moving and enjoyable with a fair share of the laughs: Stanley Tucci and Alan Cumming.

The casting was very good. The above two gems of supporting actors really helped the film overall. The director kept the film about the story, and not the costumes and burlesque theme.

The music selections and choreography were quite enjoyable. Sure the style and feel may have been seen in other productions, but they are still fun to watch. Plus, how often do you get to see Cher perform with the polish of a major movie production? This is certainly a movie to go see and have fun with. It is not just a "date" movie. By the reaction of the females in the theatre, it would seem there is more eye candy for the women. The guys will enjoy it too.

If you like the TV show Glee or the movie Chicago, this movie will be worth catching on the big screen.

1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Kick-Ass (2010)

9/10

A well done film worth seeing.

17 April 2010

The naysayers missed the point and context. This movie is NOT for kids, the R-Rating is proof enough.

Hit Girl is an awesome movie.. er... I mean Kick-Ass. The positive comments say it all. Well done film that gets so much right that it is easy to overlook the very few minor flaws. It is based on a comic book, so some artistic liberty is allowed, yes?

The character Kick-Ass is well developed and is the one person who ties the whole movie together. The main storyline is more about Hit Girl and Big Daddy. The theme is created by Kick-Ass and his vision of people standing up for what is right. The movie has a noticeable Tarrentino influence. It does quote other movies and mocks it in a dead pan style that does not say, "hey we are mocking this film now". You have to catch the references.

Was a little disappointed in the turn out on a Saturday night of the opening weekend. Probably 60 people in a 850 capacity theatre. It may be a late bloomer or a sleeper in the theatres. It is worth seeing on the big screen. Very entertaining and has some good funny moments. There are a few jaw dropping moments when you say, "no they did not just do that". It has a few surprises that will make you laugh or cringe and chuckle. The few obvious set ups on what will happen next won't make you feel disappointed (oh boy that was predictable), but you will find yourself wanting to see how it turns out and anticipating the next scene or twist.

Well done with good chemistry among the cast. The tempo, editing, cinematography, writing, and directing mixed very well together. It is one of the better films, technically speaking, that has been out in a while.

The first 15 min of character development pays off in the last 30 minutes of the film. It makes you cheer for the main characters. The sound track makes it fun. The ending does set it up for a potential sequel, but not in an annoying way, the plot lines are all tied up. Normally I would not see a movie twice, but this one would be good to see with a group of people. It will be fun to discuss afterwords over dinner or coffee.

See the film and decide for yourself. Don't take the kids. Bring friends.

4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Afflock

Reviews

Tell Your Friends

Recently Viewed