Reviews

"exciting from beginning to end, while still developing an awesome back story and character depth"

"trying to fit a mammoth plot into only two hours"

Jut a few quotes from other reviewers. I wonder what movie went to. The movie I saw had the following going for it:

The visual effects were undoubtedly incredible. The plot was not "mammoth", but thin, just enough for a sci-fi action flick.

The script and acting, however, were below par and annoyingly so at times. For instance, the two funny, sidekick scientists were rather ridiculous and obnoxious. The "(awesome) character depth" was nowhere to be found. Acting was consistently done very boldly, as in teenager boldly... rather clumsy with lots of attitude. So when several of our heroes give their life to save the world, one doesn't really care much about their 'dramatic demise'.

There are plot holes the size of a Kaiju. For instance, seeing how easy it was to obliterate two of the biggest Kaiju in one blow with the aid of a single nuclear explosion, one wonders why people went through all the trouble of creating the giant robots in the first place.

Add this all up and before you know it, you're annoyed by little details, like the zzzzzzzingy sound effects of 'the golden shoes' and the end scene were helicopters are announced to come rescue our heroes, directly followed by a shot of god knows how many helicopters flying over in a huge double formation.

Visually stunning, very well done CGI and action scenes: 8 Script, acting, well... pretty much every thing else: 3

I think that's called a "D minus" in US grades. I had hoped for much more. What a giant pity.

Did the Academy Awards owe the Coen brothers a little Oscar shower for failing to do so in the past? Come on! The competition wasn't that bad. The judges seem to be taking in more happy pills every year whilst making their unparalleled calls of who gets an Oscar and who doesn't. There decisions lately seem to be aimed at a rather peculiar mix of the public. On the one hand the mindless popcorn-craving-never-really-thought-about-a-movie kind of viewers and on the other, the snob type reviewers, sadly unable to enjoy movies in general, but very avid in expressing what an 'exceptional movie' entails.

Tommy Lee Jones and Josh Brolin delivered an enjoyable and believable performance, regardless of how the characters were written into the two-worded 'plot'. Javierf Bardem on the other hand, was understated up to and over the point of being unconvincing and downright boring. Again, what's with the Oscar for this part?

"Simply spectacular, yet another masterpiece, downright terrifying at times"... Those are tiny bits of reviews at IMDb that stop at nothing to express the unique qualities this movie would have. Must have stepped into the wrong theater when I went to see it. I completely missed anything that could substantiate that kind of qualifications.

"No Country for Old Men is as exceptional a mix of two creative talents -the Coen brothers, Joel and Ethan Coen, and author Cormac McCarthy- as one could imagine"... As long as ppl put enough superlatives to express their utmost respect for this 'masterpiece', the number of ppl who believe something amazing is going has happened will grow. Silly really, if you realize that it's just an average movie.

There is hardly anything exceptional about it. Neither is it completely worthless. The one part I enjoyed, even had a little giggle, is where the cool character Carson Wells played by Woody Harrelson, comes to an untimely end. Not entirely unexpected in the flow of the movie, but still, very funny.

Worth looking at, not worth raving about.