Reviews

Super reminiscent of Yorgos Lanthimos films, specifically Dogtooth. That stilted, other worldly, dialogue with a tone that bounces between absurd hilarity and mysterious horror. This is all emphasized by the fantastic performances and dynamic between Liam Aiken and Joe Adler. They really do a great job at portraying that intimate yet slightly awkward relationship between two friends who once we're very close but haven't been in contact for a while. The increasingly unusual goings on during their time together really do keep you wondering where things will end up.

Major props to the production design on this one. There's some really great costume choices and a really great filming location, that being this 60's or 70's era home that looks like it was a passion project by an architect.

It's short (1 hour and 12 minutes) and sweet. If you don't mind some purposeful slowness, this film deserves a watch, especially considering that I haven't heard anybody talking about this.

An ultra low budget romance/horror that actually has some really great and emotional moments, unfortunately brought down by a lot of pretty obvious flaws.

First let's get the low budget stuff out of the way. It was clearly made on the cheap. One of the first panning shots we get looks like they didn't properly loosen the tripod so it just jitters along. Some shots seem pretty flat in terms of framing and lighting. But occasionally, maybe by luck or maybe but skill, the film does look good. Certain moments look great with the black and white emphasizing some purposeful lighting choices. While it never quite shakes it's general cheapness, it's not student film bad. More like a student filmmaker who actually has some talent doing something a little more interesting.

But then there's the story. It's an extremely interesting concept, but something about the execution doesn't quite work. Maybe it was the restraints of a low budget, but it just sort of jumps into things in an awkward way. It also takes quite a long time to get into the meat of things, lingering on the "haunted house" aspect that I found to be weaker and more clichéd (although some of that is purposeful and contains nods to many different horror films.) Considering it's a short film, the extended first act causes the development of the main characters to feel way too fast to be fully believable, which is a shame because I found the ending to be extremely emotionally powerful.

Then there's the two leads. They both have a slightly amateurish quality to them, but they also have their moments. I found Natalie Walker to be the stronger of the two. There's something about her performance that made the romance believable. You feel for her and her situation, even though it's something otherwordly. MacLeod Andrews who plays our lead also has some really good comedic moments, but he sort of felt like he was always aware of the camera being there. Not that he gives an awful performance, but it always felt like he was saying "I'm acting!" as opposed to being fully relaxed and immersed in his character.

I had a lot to say about this because there's something there that I really liked, but it's kind of poorly executed in a few too many ways for me to fully invest myself in. But considering some of the really high praise other people have given it, I see it becoming a bit of a cult classic in the future.

One of the very few films that captures that feeling of a bizarre nightmare perfectly. Screw all the clichés and jump scares from most horror movies, this is real horror.

One of the biggest things that makes this so horrifying is the sets, because 95% of this film takes place in a concrete maze (which are actually painted wooden sets) with barely enough room to move. It's so claustrophobic that I actually felt extremely uncomfortable watching it. One scene in particular has our lead character's teeth against a metal pipe, with no room for him to pull his mouth off, leaving him to shimmy left and right as his teeth grind on the metal. It's horrific and unlike anything I have seen in a horror film. It's essentially Cube or Saw with less of a focus on body count and gore (Not to say that this doesn't have some blood and gore.)

I also have major respect for Tsukamoto for keeping his films at a length that he feels is necessary for telling the story. This one is about 50 minutes long, and it feels just right. His films seem to be quite often below the 1 hour 30 minutes mark.

This thing is short, horrifying, and thought provoking all in one. We seriously need more horror movies like this, because this truly encapsulates what true terror really is.

Sorry 50 Shades, but the only sexually liberated woman who's goddess is truly roaring... is Rinko Tatsumi.

It's not often you get to watch something both intelligent, creative and so sexually charged. It expertly explores sexuality and the thing we truly wish we could express in that way. Like Shinya Tsukamoto's other films, there's definitely a lot of harder to grasp ideas, but the ground work is certainly there. It works as both an artistic commentary on sexual liberation and an erotic thriller movie.

Also, Asuka Kurosawa's performance as Rinko is daring and incredible. She does a lot of really wild stuff in this and just absolutely knocks it out of the park.

Loved the experience that this film gave me. Totally unique and a must see.

Imagine if William Gibson wrote a Japanese cyberpunk version of The Incredible Hulk, and then add a dash of classic monster horror movie. That's this film.

It's almost a remake of the first film, just with a more fleshed out character arc and a little less experimentation. But I do mean a little less, since this one gets strange as hell too. It just feels less obtuse this time around, probably due to the character driven emotional core.

Just as good as the first one, just with a little more to grasp onto (without sacrificing the weirdness.)

A worst case scenario for Elon Musk's Neuralink, essentially.

Eraserhead meets metallic body horror. Both purposefully and accidently obtuse. So many crazy special effects (done by Tsukamoto himself) that stand out as extremely creative, visual, and often crude means of portraying certain events. The sound design is also strong, emphasizing both horrific and comedic moments. It's all tied together by the fantastic physical performances by the actors involved.

GAME OVER

Blew my mind, and I've been watching a lot of body horror related things recently.

The story was fascinating and had a lot of great turns, the acting from the two leads (Andrea Riseborough & Christopher Abbott) is incredible, and the cinematography is striking and quite often creative. It works simultaneously as a thriller and a body horror film, and it really knows how to balance it all.

It's a film I can't stop thinking about now. It just comes together in a way that works so well. A definite must watch.

A womanizer with a heart of gold tries to help his daughter find out the truth behind her husbands strange behavior, learning a lot more about himself and his relationships in the process.

I've had an extremely mixed relationship with Sofia Coppola's films. Lost In Translation is a masterpiece to me, but most of her other films just didn't click with me. So going into this one and seeing Bill Murray as one of the leads definitely gave me high hopes. It delivered. It's much more purposefully comedic and goofy than Lost In Translation, but it still holds that extremely strong emotional core. One scene had me shedding a tear, only to be laughing my ass off in the very next scene.

Bill Murray may be second billing to Rashida Jones, but make no mistake, his character is central to the whole film. His performance is so charming and hilarious, but also hits those deeper and more introspective moments so perfectly. He's just a joy to watch every goddamn second he's on screen. His character is flawed, but the way he's written and the way Murray portrays him makes him feel so realistic.

The reviews on here seem to be a lot less enthusiastic than mine, so perhaps this is no guarantee... but I would say that if you love Lost In Translation, this should do something for you. It connects to certain emotions and feelings that feel so true to life, and it's not often that I really feel that in an authentic way from a film.

And to top it all off, there's a brand new track by Phoenix during the credits.

A mix between a film like Black Death and the gory, weird elements of Resident Evil 4 (The game, not the 4th movie, just to be clear.)

I will say the first half had me pretty hooked. I really liked the setting and the mystery, even if it did feel like something that has been done in other films before. As the film went on, I think that slight lack of originality grew and grew until I felt more disconnected to the story line. Aside from some fun gore, the third act while well directed didn't really deliver anything that felt new, which was a big hindrance.

I think Gareth Evans did a fairly solid job here, seeing as this is the first feature (that I know of) he has done that is more story based. It was a little jarring seeing that slightly shaky, The Raid style camera work popping in even for the slightest of violent moments, but it didn't take me completely out of it aside from me halfway expecting some huge fight to break out and Iko Uwais to pop up.

I think this has some interesting mystery early on, but the reveals and eventual conclusion feels a bit uninspired and weak compared to how it feels in the first act.

A great and thrilling concept stuffed into a melodramatic package.

Johnnie To is a name that most people associate with great films, but I on the other hand can't quite 100% agree. I always find his films, while action packed, often poorly written and filled with melodrama. This film is no different.

A big gripe was the writing. There's this doctor character thrown whose storyline is quite prominent. It doesn't have much of a payoff, so it's strong presence seems odd. Then there's the silly moments. A paralyzed man falling down the stairs and being able to walk, a gun jamming not once but numerous times over and over just for the sake of drama. Even someone cocking a gun in the middle of emptying a clip. C'mon Johnnie, you make films with guns all the time! Learn how they work!

The main action set piece is a disappointment too. It's a long, one take (aided by trick editing and CGI) pf a gunfight. In theory it sounds amazing, and it does touch on greatness, but there's two big flaws in it. The musical choice is terrible. An unfitting song with unfitting lyrics. The 2nd flaw is that everyone looks like they're doing that "pretend slowmo run" that people do when they're fooling around. It's terribly laughable and sucks the drama out of the scene completely.

I wanted to be thrilled by this, but by the lackluster ending I was left disappointed.

Holy hell, Haemoo (or Sea Fog) knocks it out of the park. South Korea proves that it still has the ability to pump out some absolute gems.

I'm not gonna say much about this except that it's about a crew of South Korean fishermen who take on a group of illegal Chinese immigrants on their boat. The film makes you think that it's going to be one way, and it does something completely different. That's all I will say because anything more will spoil the incredible surprise I experienced. If that core concept sounds interesting, see this film. Try to avoid other peoples comments and reviews, as they may not be as into the film as I am and find nothing wrong in spoiling things. Also, it's apparently based on real events, and I recommend you not look that up either, as it will obviously spoil it.

Kim Yun-seok gives an incredible performance here. He really steals the show, but that's not to take away from the great performances that the rest of the cast gives. It's just that he is so great at portraying the character and the changes he goes through that he will blow you away.

This film is so damn good. It really surprised me, and I would put it up there with all the rest of the must watch South Korean films. If it sounds interesting, or you like South Korean movies, check this out immediately.

(Side note, that damn ending was so good.)

Furious 7 is essentially The Raid 2 but with cars. It's big and globe trotting, feeling like a crazy Bond film. It's also pretty stupid. but I will say it seems aware of that... half of the time. It's not my favorite of the series, but it's certainly the biggest, and it can be quite a bit of fun.

The two big flaws here are excess and stupidity. The film is 2 hours and 17 minutes, and it really feels long. As much as I love action, this film is like 92% action scenes, and with a film this length, you need to pad it a bit. Here's an example. The Raid Redemption was almost all action, but it was 90 minutes. When it's sequel turned out to be around 2 and a half hours, they padded it with drama scenes. Here, it can feel a bit like a punch to the skull for its whole run time, making you feel numb from the action and taking away from it. It seems like every 10 seconds there's a punch, slam, boom, or crash. There's guns, cars, explosions, the whole works. When there's too much, it's sensory overload and it all becomes one big ball of loud. It does contain some of the most ambitious action sequences in the whole series, and they are just insane. Cars with parachutes, cars going out windows, you name it. They are pretty well done, with a nice mix of practical and CGI. I did take issue with the way it was shot, as it could be quite shaky and fast paced, and it sometimes moves faster than your brain can process. A highlight for me was a fist fight involving Tony Jaa (who I am glad they didn't put to waste) that is just crazy. There's a scene that has a door going down a flight of stairs with the two fighters on it, and it amazed me, which is very difficult considering the mass amount of action films I have scene. When you can show me something new, I gotta give credit.

I'm sure a lot of people are wondering about the CGI Paul Walker, and I have to say they did a very good job. As someone who has seen a lot of CGI stuff, I could kind of tell when something was off, but it still had me unsure whether I was seeing really good CGI or the real Paul. The person I saw it with said she didn't notice it at all, so I guess that means that the general public won't notice a thing. It's difficult to make a human face look real with CGI, but they do a damn fine job. On that same note, there's a very touching Paul Walker tribute at the end that is tasteful and really well done. It was heart warming to see and they couldn't have done it better.

As I said, the film is kind of stupid. Yeah, the past entries haven't been smart, but they have certainly progressed further and further out of reality, and at this point it might as well be sci fi. There's clichés and stuff that just couldn't happen at all. Unfortunately, it's only self aware what feels like half of the time. It can crack a joke at itself, but other times it just feels cheesy. There's also things like Tyrese Gibsons' character, who they over use. He plays the comic relief, and it works at the right time, but when it feels like every scene includes a quip from him, you just wanna strangle the guy. There's also so many people in here, coming and going, cameos and bigger roles, you name it. Characters from past films in the series pop up for a scene, new actors are brought in as new characters, some of which more substantial than others, such as Kurt Russel being an important character, but Tony Jaa being a henchman. Iggy Azalea even pops up for like 5 seconds. That had me scratching my head a little.

Overall, fans will almost certainly enjoy it. I'm a fan of the series, and I know it's not high art, but I like to have some mindless fun. This film kind of feels like Transformers in that regard, with it's sensory overload of action and long run time, which is probably its biggest downfall for me in all honesty, but there's a lot to like here, and it gives a lot of fan service. My favorite is still Fast Five followed by the first one, but this is a big step above the disappointing 6th film.

A film such as this certainly needs to be respected. But it also really helps that this film is actually amazing, and isn't just a gimmick. It's so clear everyone involved gave it their all and put their heart and soul into it, and it pays off.

Boyhood is essentially a collection of little moments in one boys life as he grows up. We see every aspect of life here. Happy, sad, touching, funny. It really just shows how little moments in our lives when were growing up really make up who we are. As somebody who is pretty much the same age as the main actor is now, I found the film to be easy to relate to. I was seeing a boy growing up in the same way I did, and it was unlike any film experience I have had before. Many of the themes and events also resonated with me and allowed me to connect with it. It really encapsulates the feelings I had growing up.

The performances in here were great. I found Ethan Hawke to be particularly amazing, but everyone else is great too. Patricia Arquette really embodies the mother so well, and Ellar Coltrane certainly grows into his role more and more. He isn't perfect, but he works, and that's all you can ask for an actor who started the film when he was 7. It's also a fairly visually striking film, which is nice to see. It embraces the changing time periods really well and I liked how Linklater decided to show a lot of products that were popular during that time and use music that was big in those years too. It helps you remember what it was like during that specific time. Each time period of the kids life feels unique, and it's so incredible to see it progress. It uses the 2 hour and 45 minute run time to its fullest, and it lets important moments play out.

Boyhood is a film about growing up and life that tackles the hard issues and general feelings of confusion that comes with life, but overall leaves you on an uplifting note. It captures the realism well, and will really give you an unforgettable film experience.

Cloud Atlas is one of the most ambitious films I have ever seen. 30 minutes into the almost 3 hour film, I began to think that perhaps it was too bloated and all over the place to actually achieve what it set out to do, but a few minutes after that 30 minute mark the film started to prove itself to me, up until the very end when I had been completely won over.

Cloud Atlas is not one story, but 6 stories. What's even more interesting is that almost every actor in this film plays a different character in each storyline. Sometimes you don't even recognize them because of mass amounts of makeup and prosthetics, or sometimes they will play a tiny role in one storyline but a main role in another one. The story lines do not occur one after the other like an anthology film, but simultaneously. We bounce back and forth between them because they are all interconnected in a way. Why? Because the main themes of the film involve past lives and karma. It also looks at other themes, such as love. It's jam packed, even for a 3 hour film, but it most certainly pulls it all off.

I would say that I enjoyed every actors performance. Sure, some are a little cheesy at times, but a lot of that is actually played off as comedy. Tom Hanks is great. Jim Sturgess is wonderful. Halle Berry is terrific. As I said, everyone is great. There's also a lot of unique style to each individual story. Some are more action packed and dazzling in their visuals, such as the Neo Seoul story, where as some are more simply beautiful and touching, such as the story of two gay lovers separated in 1936, which is a story that touched me and I would have loved to have seen as a full length film. In fact, all of these stories could have worked on their own, but in a way they work even better all in one story. When you see just how one story connected with the other, it's really satisfying and often emotional.

I would highly recommend this. It's not gonna be everyone's cup of tea, but it's so incredibly ambitious that it deserves to be seen. I really loved it and was taken by surprise just how well done it was.

As somebody who has seen Alien and Aliens, and liked them but wasn't crazy about them, I can say that I actually think Prometheus was pretty good. It got a lot of hate from Alien series fans, but I don't see why. Is it because it's only loosely related to the franchise? Who knows. All I can say is that it's a good sci-fi film.

In theory, it's kind of the same story we have seen in not only other sci-fi films, but the other Alien films. That being said, the way it's executed in Prometheus works. It adds it's own flair to already existing ideas in the sci-fi genre. I also found the plot and it's themes to be quite clear, where as I have heard a lot of people complain that it makes no sense. I really don't understand that complaint. Yeah, not EVERYTHING is explained, but it doesn't need to be. The main ideas were explained, and that's whats important. It's also heavy on themes of faith and creation, and I liked the way it explored these themes. I also must say I really loved the very last scene that connects it to Alien. I won't spoil it, but it's really awesome to see.

I do hope there is some kind of sequel or continuation. It builds on the world of the Alien franchise, and I find it fascinating. I personally can sometimes find the lore of a sci-fi film or series to be too much, but I really like what they were going for here, and want to see more.

Michael Mann's debut feature film. Wow. This film certainly establishes the great style that Mann's films have. It's also a film that Nicolas Winding Refn must have watched before making Drive, because there's a lot of similarities between the two. Both are the tales of men who are involved in heists and criminal activity and fall in love with a woman, until their criminal ties lead to bad things. The only difference being that this film has a LOT more dialogue than Drive. Drive attempts to silently convey the emotions found in Thief.

James Caan gives a really great performance in this. He stands out especially in a scene in a diner where he explains his thinking in regards to life, and it's really great. All the other people play their roles perfectly, and it was really cool to see the first role that William Petersen got, even if it's like 5 seconds of screen time.

The visual style of this film is what stands out. I watched the Criterion Bluray and it looks amazing. The cinematography is great, especially during night time scenes in the streets, and other colorful scenes like the beach scene. It looks great, and the bluray is stunning.

The film kept me on edge, especially towards the end. The tension is there, and it's quite thrilling. I'd really recommend it to fans of crime drama, and also people who loved Drive. It's really good, and it's cool to see where Michael Mann started off.

I will get the obvious out of the way. This film is obviously very similar to a film that came out earlier the same year, The Raid. While I do see many similarities that make me suspicious of claims that Dredd was written long before The Raid, I will say this film is unique enough to hold it's own. The similarities are there for sure, but it doesn't take away from this film.

Dredd is a film based on a comic book that has already had a film made about it, but this film is way better than the pile of crap that is Judge Dredd (1995). It's got a gritty scifi style to it and it doesn't hold back, since its an R rated film instead of a PG 13, which they quite easily could have made it. But I am glad they made it an R rated film, cause it makes the violence more hard hitting. Also, in regards to the comparison to The Raid, this is almost completely gun play, where as The Raid is almost entirely martial arts.

The visuals are really cool and unique in this. Though I do have a complaint after watching the Bluray. I noticed many issues where one shot would be nice and clear and clean looking, and when they cut to a different angle, it looked grainy. I have heard they used different cameras, and while I don't know 100%, I think this might be the issue. There were a few shots that were almost unbearably grainy and low quality looking. It felt like they didn't want to take the time to better light the shot and increased the ISO on the digital camera or something, causing the grain. Who know. Luckily when the film got interesting I put it to the back of my mind.

I really enjoyed this movie. It was unique and entertaining. I must say I do prefer the Raid, even though this film seems like it had a bigger budget. The Raid is just more off the walls and insane, where as this feels like a toned down version. It's saved by it's visuals, however, and I would recommend it to people who liked The Raid.

I for one am sick of the superhero genre dominating the modern day box office and Hollywood. I don't want to see 9 different superhero films with the same kind of plot just to see 2 films where all the characters come together in a plot that is no different than all the other films before it. I don't give a damn about "phase 2" or whatever. Just stop. Cranking out these movies just for the sake of having more cross overs and sequels is ridiculous. While I can't deny that the main plot of Guardians Of The Galaxy doesn't stray far from all of the other comic book movies its tied to, it's approach feels much fresher, and I can't say how much I appreciate that.

There was a lot of things I liked. The mixtape soundtrack was really cool. I also enjoyed all the main characters and their interactions, especially when the lead to some emotional moments throughout. The visuals are also very vivid and creative. The whole design of the galaxy and its people should be appreciated. But I do acknowledge issues. The aforementioned typical comic book plot and finale. The action sequences leave a lot to be desired to be honest. But I think issues like this could be fixed in a future sequel.

I still dislike the idea of more silly comic books films and crossovers, but at least this film was unique enough to make me look forward to the sequel to this and even any future cross over films involving the Guardians. It's a fun popcorn flick. Check it out.

I have a feeling a lot of people disliked this because it actually isn't just 2 hours of Channing Tatum and other hot guys stripping. But for me, a straight male, I was glad it wasn't. I was also glad because it was a pleasant surprise. Magic Mike is a glimpse into the world of male stripping, and it doesn't try to hide anything. It's a tale of a a master finding his apprentice, showing him the ropes, but not realizing the kind of world he is exposing him to. A glamour filled yet dark and depressing lifestyle. Yeah that young guys are making the money and getting the girls, but you see the opposite of that in the oldest stripper, Tarzan. He's worn down and can't hold his own, but is still stripping. It's a sad life.

Channing Tatum does a really good job. He's someone who I thought was really crappy at first, but he's come into his own in the world of acting. He can do serious and comedic roles, and he has to do both here, and he does it well! Alex Pettyfer plays the kid that Tatum takes under his wing, and he portrays the young and aimless rookie pretty well, and his eventual transformation works. The back and forth between Pettyfer and Tatum is good, especially considering that I read they didn't get along on set. Sadly I thought Cody Horn was a bit weak at times. She is supposed to be Tatums love interest and Pettyfers sister, but she is kind of emotionless. It's hard to tell if shes mad, sad, happy, sarcastic or what the hell shes trying to do. It's kind of weird and brings the film down.

I liked the story that was being told. It's a behind the scenes look at a profession and lifestyle I know nothing about. It's consistently interesting, and even the actual stripping scenes work and aren't gratuitous, because you need to see what they do on stage to understand them more. You can't have the film without the stripping. It's interestingly shot as well, with that Steven Soderbergh style that a lot of his films that he has directed has. Yellowish coloring outdoors and lots of color inside the strip club. There's also some great use of lighting during a scene towards the end that I won't spoil. It's well done.

I enjoyed Magic Mike more than I thought I would. It had more depth than expected, and I appreciated that. Although i'm sure the sequel being made, Magic Mike XXL will be less character drama and more shirtless Channing Tatum, since Soderbergh isn't directing it. Talk about missing the point.

Quick story time. Twister was a film I watched as a very young kid, and I watched it over and over. Probably over 100 times. It holds a place in my heart to this day. It's not perfect, but it's fun. I think it also made me interested in storms and tornado's and rainy weather in general. So with that in mind, I was excited to watch this. I knew it probably wouldn't be a masterpiece, but I liked the idea of Twister as a found footage movie. But sadly I was disappointed. And I apologize for all the Twister comparisons that will be coming, but I have to do it.

Into The Storm is a film that has ideas that worked, but is mostly made up of silly, cheesy moments and really poorly written and cliché characters and drama. You look at Twister and you have the interesting relationship between Bill Paxtons character and Helen Hunt. They are divorced, but tornado chasing reignites their spark. But here, you get your typical father who wants to rescue his son, woman with a small kid at home, and all the other boring, one dimensional characters. So when there's drama, I kind of felt myself just watching without being invested. The only person I felt a little twang of sadness for was the victim of the "fire tornado", but that was short-lived. It's just full of boring characters that you can barely remember AS your watching, so good luck remembering them the day after you watched the movie. Twister has characters like Philip Seymore Hoffmans character who is eccentric in the best of ways, where as Into The Storm has... two drunken hillbillys that we are supposed to feel for and like cause... they are the "innocently dumb" kind of hicks you see in movies only. You get the idea.

Effects wise, I couldn't help but keep thinking about how good Twister looks to this day, and how it could probably hold it's own against this film. Perhaps this film had a larger scale, since it wrecks a town instead of emptier farm land, but some CGI left me disappointed. I also felt that Twister got the behavior of tornado's a little bit better. Twister is far from realistic, but Into The Storm had some eye roll worthy moments with how sudden the storms appear and disappear and come right for our protagonists. There are also some scenes that might work as an idea, but when executed are more cheesy than good. There's a moment at the end that I won't spoil, but it involves seeing the "heavenly light" above the tornado, and while it's a cool visual, it just doesn't work in a way I would like it to. But things like the massive tornado, the fire tornado, and some of the destruction did satisfy the part of me that just wanted to see some tornadoes destroy crap.

I personally will still stick with Twister. It's got waaaaay better characters, and just is a tighter film. A lot of people hate on it, but it's actually pretty fun and enjoyable. This, on the other hand, is weak. It's feels like a weaker, found footage movie version of Twister, mixed with Christian film level acting and writing. It's not that I didn't enjoy it, I just wanted more. Is it worth a watch for people who want to see some cool tornadoes and storms? Yeah I guess, but even then you still might be let down. Don't expect much, and you might like it.

I was pretty excited to watch this since the trailers looked good, but I must say I was let down. Some good things here and there, but lacked substance.

The biggest issue for me would be that this film feels like two different films. You have the Japanese guy who is a pro serial killer and seems to have a troubled past, which I preferred of the two, and then you have the Indonesian guy who kind of becomes connected to the other guy. The only thing is, how he becomes connected is silly. Minor spoilers since this happens early on, but he kills some guys who are trying to rob him. It's a heat of the moment thing. But he then records them dying and uploads it online. There is no reasoning for this, other than the fact that they try to portray him as some kind of "Hulk" like character where he loses his mind and kills without regard, and all of a sudden he will snap out of it and regret it. It was completely unbelievable and felt contrived just to get these two main characters together, which is where another issues arises.

The poster says "From The Producers Of Cold Fish And The Raid", and thats what it feels like. It's like two different directors shot their own films, and then added in scenes where the two main characters talk on webcam and the finale. The reason why they connect at first seems to make sense, but how it ends just feels completely unmotivated. There was barely any connection between the two throughout, and then they expect us to find the finale really riveting. It just didn't work.

If this had JUST been the Japanese guys story, I would have liked it a lot more. His story had the most going on and brought up some interesting ideas that never really get fleshed out because we need to go back to the other guy in Indonesia. But together, they feel so disconnected and just make the run time longer than it should be.

While there was some good visual stuff that I liked, like the club scene, there were many editing and directing issues. A character runs through a group of guys who want to grab him, and somehow through wonky editing, he gets through them and ends up on the floor a few feet away from them. It seems like the directors just said "Yeah I really don't know how he would get out of this one... but it looks cool so just make him somehow escape."

If you liked the trailer, watch this at your own caution. It probably won't deliver in the way you expected.

What do you get when you mix the Bourne movies with a North/South Korean spy story? This film.

A North Korean spy in Berlin finds himself in a whole world of trouble, involving betrayal and lots of action. The complicated story is something that makes sense for a political based spy thriller, but can get pretty convoluted at times. I would say that I know more about North/South Korean relations than there average person, and i'm no expert, but I still found myself lost at times. Lot's of different characters interact and double cross and it can be hard figuring out who wants what and who did what. But I think at the end of the film I kind of got the main idea. I can certainly see this being a problem with some audiences.

The action is this is pretty great. The fights and shootouts are tightly shot and well directed, making it feel like a Hollywood film, in a good way. Nothing feels cheap or cheesy. It's gritty and hard hitting, just how I like my action.

I guess at the end of the day, there was just something missing for me. I can't quite pinpoint it, which is useless in terms of me giving a clear opinion in this review, but I can't help it. I enjoyed it, but I don't know if it's under rated and recommendable in the way that a film like The Man From Nowhere is. Perhaps the confusing plot just kind of took me out and had me less connected, leading to the big twists being less hard hitting. Either way, I would say watch this if you're up for the challenge or figuring out a highly political and twisting plot. It's entertaining and well made, which is great to see. It also sets itself up for a sequel, which would be interesting to see. Another example of good Korean film making.

Tarantino says this was the best film of 2013. I disagree.

Big Bad Wolves is a film that felt like a mix of Korean revenge films like Lady Vengeance and The Chaser in terms of the violence and twists, but it's slow pacing is reminiscent of the Austrian film Michael (2011), which is essentially the darker and more messed up version of this film. (And I would highly recommend it because I have never heard anyone discuss it and I thought it was pretty good.)

I think either dark comedies are not my bag, or dark comedies these days aren't that great. I'm going with the latter. A film like American Psycho is funny as hell but also contains some disturbing stuff. It meshes well. This film, and many others like it, bounce back and forth between comedy and serious so much that you get whiplash. It doesn't mesh, and that's the key that a dark comedy needs.

The one thing I did like was the whole twist that occurs, which I won't spoil, but I thought was smart. The issue is, it just kind of ends on that. Not that a film can't end on a twist like that, as the aforementioned film Michael ends in a similar fashion but works way better. This ending kind of has you going "Ok..." and that's about it. Perhaps it would have worked better for me if I had found the rest of the film more interesting, but I didn't. The build up takes a while and some of the stuff feels unnecessary. Details like the father that shows up could almost be completely cut from the film and it would be much better.

Let me end this review by mentioning that Tarantino listed Drive (2011) under his "Nice Try Award" section of his top picks for 2011 films. To Big Bad Wolves, I say...

Nice try.

Potential is the one word that comes to mind after watching this.

This is one of those films that really has some gems in it, but is sadly buried by issues. It's a film that is plagued by the issues that most cheesy Hong Kong action films have. Melodrama to the max, CGI all over the place, unbelievable turns of events and convoluted plot. The only thing that makes this movie different from other poorly made action films is... it's not that poorly made at all. In fact, lot's of moments are superb.

Starting with the plot, it's certainly something thats been done before. Cops VS Bank Robbers. The good side of it is that it has some interesting elements towards the end in regards to the morality of the main cop. The bad side... there's too much going on. We side plots all over the place. An overly dramatic plot with one of the criminal and his wife, who is of course friends with the main cop who has a friend who is undercover and has a young daughter and... you get the point, there's just too much. It's not that I don't think these elements could have worked... but they needed to choose only a few and make them way less dramatic. They try to make you feel for these characters by putting them in terrible or dramatic situations, but you end up laughing because it all seems so forced. It will sometimes leave you scratching your head in that way that a lot of Hong Kong films do. I often find myself confused by certain plot elements in these films, and I don't really know why. It seems exclusive to these Hong Kong films. And let me just say, the way they end this is ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS. I don't want to spoil it, but lets just say the "magically appearing truck" that kills a character got a massive "WHAT THE F***!?" from me and is a cheap and terrible deus ex machina.

One of the best elements is the action sequences, which can be gritty and hard hitting... until the GCI and ridiculousness kicks in. You find yourself really getting into it, only to be taken out when the obviously fake explosions send Andy Lau flying up and down and left and right and into cars and out of cars and on cars and blah blah blah. It's cheesy to the max and it blows my mind that they expect us to believe that he could survive all these explosions. It's frustrating beyond belief when you take into account just how gritty the gunfights would have been without this element. I'm pretty sure this was released in 3D in Hong Kong, which explains this element, but doesn't excuse it. Thanks for ruining some good stuff with a gimmick, guys.

There's also some nice directing and cinematography going on here as well. Certain shots are really gorgeous and nice to look at. Even the action scenes are directed well, minus the crappy explosions and stuff. It shows there is some talent going on here.

At the end of the day, I certainly didn't hate this movie. But it frustrates me more than anything, because I see the MASSIVE potential this movie had to be a classic Hong Kong film, but it misses the mark. I'm sure it won't be forgotten, as there are much blander films like this out there, but still.

The Counselor is quite the interesting film. I saw the trailer to it and thought it looked great. When it came out in theaters, I heard pretty bad things about it. I just recently picked up the bluray to give it a chance. While I do certainly have gripes with it, I actually liked it more than I expected I would.

I'd like to start with what I liked about it, since most people just rip the film apart. First off, I thought the visual style and atmosphere that the visuals help build was really good. It's a nice looking movie, and that can't be denied. It also has a plot that had me interested. In one way it's something we have seen done before, but something about the way the characters come together worked for me. It's also quite the dark film, and I can appreciate that since many films don't go as dark as this. I also think Fassbender gives a very good performance. Even Penelope Cruz is good in a role that makes you almost fall in love with her yourself.

Now, onto the negatives. One huge issue is the script. It's been said before, but it seems like it would work better in a book than it does on film. It was written by Cormac McCarthy who has written many great books, some one which have been adapted to films. But this is just too far on the literature side of things than it is the film side. But one thing that really changes my view of this is the fact that I watched only the unrated extended cut. A lot of the sequences that I had issues with were ones that weren't in the theatrical cut, only the extended cut. But at the same time, these scenes felt like they were needed. The reason why I feel this is because while these dialogue scenes didn't add anything to the main plot at all, without them we wouldn't get enough scenes with the characters. These scenes are simply people telling stories that at the end of the day are just random unrelated tales. Some of the stories added in the extended cut also add an element of foreshadowing that becomes so heavy that we almost know exactly what will happen at the end, ruining some of the suspense. It's as if even though they don't develop the characters, we need them in order for those specific characters to have enough screen presence for them to matter at all. Obviously if these scenes had been replaced by really good character development, the film could have been improved drastically.

There's also a few sequences in the extended cut that really don't seem to add much, even if they are kinda cool on their own. There's a phone call between Penelope Cruz and Cameron Diaz that I like, and there's even an extended opening sequence with Fassbender and Cruz that is extremely erotic and I think works amazingly well to establish their relationship from the start. It's hard for me to say whether the film is vastly improved by this extended cut, or if watching the theatrical cut without them would be better. I really don't know, but perhaps I will write a review of the theatrical cut if I ever watch that.

A big mis-step for me is letting a certain character come out on top. I won't spoil who, but the character whom I hated the most (and the actor who played the character) ends up kind of coming out unscathed. I think with a better actor, the characters actions and the ending itself would have been good, but in this case it just doesn't work. It reminds me a lot of the ending of Trance (2013) where a certain character comes out on top, but it just doesn't feel satisfying because of the actor in the role, and it instead angers you.

At the end of the day, I did like this film. It has many things working for it. It's just disappointing because you can see exactly where it fails, and if those things had been fixed, the film would have been incredible. I would still say its underrated considering how much crap people give it.