Change Your Image
desveaux
Reviews
G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra (2009)
Mindless is an understatement:
A mix of Armageddon, X2 and Star Wars; Hollywood mindless movie to the max! How does it "honor" Armageddon? Mainly in it's level of stupidity.
Towards the beginning, we see our heroes shoot at the bad guys with bazookas and bullets, to no effect at all. Why don't they at least fall down? Are they aliens? Nope; just don't think, the movie says, over and over again. Later, a good girl fights the bad girl; we see her take her invisible clothes, but she doesn't put it on at once; waits until she's nearly killed, first. And since she's nearly getting killed by chains, why does invisibility help at that point? Of course, the bad girl Still wins the fight! Why do we need a collider lab help "activate," the weapon? On and on, it says, "Do Not think today!" But even an eight yr. old thinks! Why do female soldiers wear low cut shirts?
It's like X2, because it uses the idea of controlling others with a chemical, that looks just the same in X2. It looks like Star Wars, in the fighting subs. Ya, but why not just blow up the under water city with missiles??
Oh, ya, I forgot: do Not think! Why is the black hero Always making jokes? Oh ya: like Star Wars and C-3PO!
Almost forgot the biggest "Don't think" moment at all! Around 1/2 way into it, the good guys are underground in Egypt; well the bad guys are coming and at first, the heroes seem to realize it, but no, they do not! Even though several large drilling machine come Right into the heroes headquarters, the G.I. Joe's can NOT detect this, until it's too late! hahahahaha.
If you have half a brain, skip it. Or if you're a mindless viewer, go right ahead and be my guest! Don't say you wasn't warned, though. haahah.
Casino Royale (2006)
Not the way to reinvent a franchise.
I saw a man Completely unlike any other Bond before him. He acts similarly to Tim Dalton, which isn't good in my book. Dan Craig would be excellent in some parts, but both were way too serious for my money. A bit of humor was always a nice part of the 007 series for me & all I've talked to about Bond. This movies has very little humor, but is deadly serious. And what do we begin with:?" Bond as Batman!! (I mean, not that he's dressed as Batman, but he's jumping around as Batman might.) I didn't care for it.
But really confused me was this: on the documentary (disk), the director explained they "had" to replace Pierce Brosnan with Craig, because this is a prequel & Brosnan would be too old to play a character set in the beginning of the series. If that is so, why is the movie set in 2006?! Also, why do we have Judi Drench playing M again?! The director said, he just "couldn't" replace her. So, that means Brosnan Could be replaced, right? But, as it's set in the present day & we have the Dame Drench, I didn't know what was going on. I wasn't sure, if they was trying to say, they had replaced 007 with another man named James Bond or were they simply being inconsistent with the story?!
The old music was also gone, save for a bit of it on the closing credits nor did I care for the main credit's song, either. And instead of seeing beautiful women exit the ocean, we see Mr. Bond (not my cup of tea, you see?!)
I'm not necessarily against reinventing a franchise, either. However, to see how to Really do it, watch Batman Returns...Now That how to do it!
Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005)
a Perfect Mythic Movie.
A perfect 10! As is "LOTR," a mythic masterpiece.
The music, was the best part & can be considered a "space opera," too. The FX, was perfect, too, as good as can be imagined. The action, was awesome, IMO. The acting, was just fine. The story was fine, except I knew almost everything with was to transpire...almost! There was one major surprise & one small one, too. If I had been lucky, I could have surprised twice, but a radio station caller spoiled part of my fun :-(. Over all, should it win Oscar's: best picture, best screen-play, best musical score, best FX, best sound effects, & perhaps, other technical awards, too.
Dear God (1996)
I thought it was a made-for-TV-movie.
A throw-a-away script & actors sleep walking through it, too. Silly, silly, silly for children, maybe?! Human being with minds, please stay away. Stupid, stupid & more stupid. Insipid, insipid, insipid. No tension, no surprises, no logic, no wonder you haven't heard of it! No ideas. No humor, "no nothing." No good. Not funny, not fun, not cool. I was forced to watch this by my "friend" at work; gee, thanks! Got it in the bargain basement bin; gee, I wonder why? "Great flick," hun?? Why not use your time wisely, like read, walk or walk into walks instead? I'd rather walk off into the ocean, than watch this again. Sorry; just trying to meet the length guidelines!
Sideways (2004)
Most overrated movie since "Fargo."
If you loved Fargo, see this one; if you're like me, skip this garbage! I laughed zero times. I'm shocked you guys are giving this an 8 ave! I've seen over 1000 flicks & I can see very little to like about it. Acting was OK; a few surprises. That's it! Very slow, especially the first 1/2 & a very downer, too. Even the last moment, is a downer, as it doesn't give the viewer what they are waiting for! OK; I admit it: I'm not crazy about low budget movies, anyways. But, I have liked a few, but I knew this would be a Bad one! I was Not disappointed, in that respect. I even tried to put myself in the place of a wine lover, which I'm told is a big group in love with it. I Still would not have liked it. Plus, some of the messages of it: screw around before one gets married is Bad, in case you might not know! And no, I'm Not a conservative Christian, either. Plus, the "hero," saves his relationship by lying, too! Gee, other than that, a lot of great messages for the "kids!!" So, have fun!! PS: I saw a review on "Christianity Today," which gave this "3 1/2 out of 4 stars!" Wow; what is the world coming to?!
Alexander (2004)
Is the glass 1/2 full or 1/2...?
Yes, it could have have been better, but I did think it was an above ave. film. The bad: accents! All different types from all over the globe & I Don't mean the fact, Alex used men from all over His globe, either (perhaps that was Stone's point??). No "to the strong goes the empire!," speech?! Unclear looks at the (especially from the bird-eye's view) big Asian battle scene (yes, I Know, Mr. Stone, it's dusty!). Breaking up the key speech, to go elsewhere, several times. (I don't like looking at entails, either!) Sir Hopkip's narrations, sometimes slow things up. The good: I liked both battles, over all; just wish there was a lot more of them, though! (I'm told he fought about 50.) The acting & casting, was excellent. I loved Jolie & Kilmer, especially. I'm glad they showed Aristotle; imagine having the smartest person Alive as one's tutor! The scenery & music are first rate, too. The "gay" references, to me, were as trivial as can be: please remember, this was Normal for pre-Christian times! So, in sum, I'd give it an A-.
Alexander (2004)
Is the glass 1/2 full or 1/2...?
Yes, it could have have been better, but I did think it was an above ave. film. The bad: accents! All different types from all over the globe & I Don't mean the fact, Alex used men from all over His globe, either (perhaps that was Stone's point??). No "to the strong goes the empire!," speech?! Unclear looks at the (especially from the bird-eye's view) big Asian battle scene (yes, I Know, Mr. Stone, it's dusty!). Breaking up the key speech, to go elsewhere, several times. (I don't like looking at entails, either!) Sir Hopkip's narrations, sometimes slow things up. The good: I liked both battles, over all; just wish there was a lot more of them, though! (I'm told he fought about 50.) The acting & casting, was excellent. I loved Jolie & Kilmer, especially. I'm glad they showed Aristotle; imagine having the smartest person Alive as one's tutor! The scenery & music are first rate, too. The "gay" references, to me, were as trivial as can be: please remember, this was Normal for pre-Christian times! So, in sum, I'd give it an A-.
The Incredibles (2004)
Title says it all (if you're an adult).
The more one is an adult, the more one is likely to love this. The kids, seemed bored when the talking during parts & I would not even take a child less than 6; of Course, most parents won't pay attention to the fact, it's a PG flick, not a G movie! Lot's of kids were 1 to 6 yrs. old. Well, I was totally pleased w/ a movie for Me! I don't have kids, but I can place myself in their shoe's & they might like it even more than I did, it's that's possible. But I hope teens will love it too, as Violet is a key character. The Animation is Very impressive, but I'm one that thinks the story always trumps all & the story was perfect for adults & again, over the heads of kids & maybe not as interesting for teens. So, I bet, more of the bad reviews here, will be from teens or young adults. (I'm 49.) Maybe we should be "forced" to give our age? haha!
Bob
PS: I never give away plot points.