I'm currently a little tired of super hero movies (I know, temporary suspension of my man card), but I really enjoyed this movie anyway. It was a little cheesy at times, but I think that's part of why I enjoyed it. However, as a word of warning, my wife did fall asleep during the last 15 minutes of the movie, so YMMV.
I'm currently a little tired of super hero movies (I know, temporary suspension of my man card), but I really enjoyed this movie anyway. It was a little cheesy at times, but I think that's part of why I enjoyed it. However, as a word of warning, my wife did fall asleep during the last 15 minutes of the movie, so YMMV.
Hey! You stole my thunder, I was just about to post my review of the same thing.
I too am somewhat burned out on the super hero thing, just too many here lately for my liking and IMHO they have mostly been subpar, The Green Hornet, and Thor left much to be desired.
I did like Captain America though and you are right, it is a little cheesy, but it works for this movie for sure. I really liked all of the references to the other Marvel comics too pretty slick. I got a kick out of all the Stark involvement too. It was a blind buy for me and I was not disappointed. I watched the movie on my other TV without the whole surround sound experience so I can't comment on that. With just the movie I'd rate 3.5/5 I would say that with the benefit of surround sound and all I'd bump it up another half point for sure.
Have been trying to Redbox "Super-Eight" all weekend but no luck, seems to be quite popular and sold-out. So last night we red-boxed "Green Lantern", went into this with low expectations and in the end; found it be a decent popcorn flick. I give it a 3.5. And of course they have set it up for a sequel ....
The Great Gatsby (1974) - I remember having to read the book back in high school but remembered very little about the story. The plot is actually quite interesting but the movie leaves a lot to be desired. It takes almost an hour to develop the plot and set the background but isn't bad if you can make it through that far. Robert Redford & Sam Waterson played their roles well. I'll have to give this one a 2/5.
Recently discovered that this one was remade in 2000 and is slated for another remake in 2012 (this one starring Leonardo Dicaprio and Tobey Magquire). May be worth checking out.
Born Losers:
3.3/5 (imdb 5.8/10, amazon 4.5/5, rotten tomatoes 60%)
A malicious 1960's motorcycle gang harasses the residents of a small California town, intimidating most residents to not report them to the police. Among the gang's crimes is the rape of four young women. As the gang attempts to threaten the women into not testifying at the indictment hearing, one of the women, Vicki, comes under the protection of Billy Jack, who has also had several run-ins with the gang.
Interestingly it was written by Delores Taylor, the female lead in the white bikini and white leather knee high boots.
Billy Jack
3.6/5 (imdb 4.8/10, amazon 3.9/5, rotten tomatoes 52%)
He's a warrior, a mystic, a martyr. Billy Jack quickly became one of the most unorthodox and magnetic movie heroes of all time. Tom Laughlin charismatically plays the title character, a half-breed Native American and ex-Green Beret returning to live in solitude on an Arizona reservation. He is drawn to the progressive Freedom School - and the idealistic woman (Delores Taylor) who runs it. But when tensions flare between the students and narrow-minded local bigots, Billy Jack becomes the school's protector. Once again, violence finds him. First released with little fanfare and dismissed by most critics, the film's gut honesty struck a chord with audiences, who later made it a box-office giant.
The Trial of Billy Jack
1.5/5
Not a complete waste of time after watching Billy Jack, but wouldn't be any good as a stand alone movie.
Billy Jack's grandfather has some interesting philosophy.
The flower children excesses of Billy Jack movie are taken to extreme here, and the ending while trying to emulate some things that happened in the news doesn't pull it off from a history or realism or believability point of view.
Billy Jack Goes to Washington
0.5/5
A complete rip off of James Stewart's Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (1939), and no where near as good even though it has the same lines and the same scenes, except for two karate moves.
The premise is that trolls are real, and they typically roam about the unpopulated wooded and mountainous regions of Norway. However, when they do cross paths with humans, a secret segment of the Norwegian government attempts to cover up any out of the ordinary events caused by the trolls. When one of the agency's members decides it's time the truth gets out, he brings along a college film crew to video his work.
The first thing I'd point out about this movie is it's a foreign film (Norwegian) with subtitles. For the most part, I'm not a fan of movies with subtitles (Pan's Labyrinth would be an exception that comes to mind). The next, this is a found footage film, which, in my limited experience, typically relies on suspense to carry the movie. Unfortunately, I never got that feeling while watching this, and I never really got interested in the characters enough to be concerned about what happened to them. At any rate, this movie really wasn't my speed, but others might find it interesting.
Watched Cowboys & Aliens (2011)
3.2/5 (amazon 3.6/5, imdb 6.3/10, rotten tomatoes 44%, Decent Films C+)
The first half I rather enjoyed as there were a lot of unknowns, the last half was extremely formulaic.
Still, when watching the first half I remember thinking 'this is better than most of the new DVDs of the past six months'.
The alien ship and aliens reminded me of the Worldship and Magog of the television show Andromeda (not a good thing) -- the ship didn't seem to make a lot of sense, and the aliens had access to technology but seemed to prefer to rip their victims apart with their bare claws.
Actor Clancy Brown seems to have aged prematurely (you may recall him for the huge evil swordsman in Highlander 1986).
Half the film is shot at night -- so beware of black levels. This film you have to watch with the lights off.
Unexpectedly it had some reasonable bass, and DBOX support.
Accused murderer and CEO head of a mega corporation is ordered by the president to return to Pacifica as admiral which he had been in charge of building in order to take care of a problem only he's qualified to handle. At one moment, they've got water gushing in, sparks flying, fires, all the gold from fort knox and everywhere else, rockets arriving every 18 minutes each with the most explosive power source in the world 'U128', a bank heist, a mysterious submarine, an industrial accident, a crashed Flying Sub (Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea), an earthquake, betrayal, an evacuation of all the citizens of the city, a control tower traffic jam trying to manage a Dunkirk evacuation (with hundreds of junk submarines), a super asteroid collision about to hit the city, electric missiles charging eating up all the city's power, two civilian mutinies who dislike military control, and a police investigation presenting evidence that he wasn't actually guilty of murder after all -- and while all this is going on and our managing hero is being pulled every which way, the leading lady (not the secretary, the leading lady) offer's this bit of assistance: "Can I get you a cup of coffee?" It's a touching moment.
Certainly an Irwin Allen film. Certainly a lot of bad science. Definitely a B movie, with a lot of sci fy.
Didn't quite rise to the nostalgic feeling, although about 15 minutes in I recalled the ending I hadn't seen in 30 years.
I forgot to look for the 10 foot Jupiter 2 model from Lost in Space. I did spot one of the sets from the Time Tunnel.
Back in 1971 I might have given it 3.9/5. Not a movie to brag about to your friends (oh the AvsForum irony), but if there's nothing else on it's not a bad way to spend an hour and a half.
Quote:
There it is - Pacifica - a gleaming metropolis on the ocean floor. But the fabulous, futuristic city is seven hours away from doom as a giant asteroid hurtles toward a direct hit. Good thing an all-star cast of steel-nerved stalwarts - including Stuart Whitman, Robert Wagner, Richard Basehart, Joseph Cotton and boxing legend Sugar Ray Robinson - is on hand. From Irwin Allen, the beloved disaster movie impresario behind The Poseidon Adventure, Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea and The Towering Inferno, comes the over-the-top underwater adventure
Nice light Walt Disney fare. Bad guys have guns, but never hit anything.
Extremely dated, but wonderfully reminiscent of days gone by.
I fast forwarded over a couple boring parts.
The very last question in the $100,000 knowledge contest asked the name of the Midwest city that is in the area known as the "geographic center of the U.S." Medfield answered Lebanon, KS and won the contest. However, that answer is incorrect because of the way the question was phrased. Lebanon, KS is the geographic center of the 48 states, not the U.S. The official markers there are worded that way. The center of the U.S. is a site in South Dakota about 20 miles north of Belle Fourche. There is a USGS benchmark on the spot which moved from Lebanon, KS in 1959 after Alaska and Hawaii became states, 10 years before this movie came out.
Released in 1969 and the first of three Dexter Riley films starring Kurt Russell as the Medfield college student who was repeatedly acquiring special powers through strange science accidents. (the other two being: The Strongest Man in the World (1975), and Now You See Him, Now You Don't (1972)).
Quote:
He's Dexter Riley (Kurt Russell), just a regular-guy college student at Medfield College--until one fateful night he is accidentally transformed into a human computer. His newfound genius makes him an overnight sensation when he gets all the answers right on a college quiz show. This instant celebrity status also brings an instant massive ego, which threatens his friendships as well as his safety. Caught up between battling college deans (Joe Flynn and Alan Hewitt) and a dangerous mobster (Cesar Romero), Dexter soon learns friends are more valuable than money. This movie, released in 1969, is a true romp with silly situations and madcap misadventures. The size of the computer itself is now good for a sight gag. It's likable but goofy, with no real weight. A fun, innocent diversion that the whole family can look and laugh at, each for different reasons
Quote:
Some college students manage to persuade the town's big businessman, A. J. Arno, to donate a computer to their college. When the problem- student, Dexter Riley, tries to fix the computer, he gets an electric shock and his brain turns to a computer; now he remembers everything he reads. Unfortunately, he also remembers information which was in the computer's memory, like the illegal business Arno is involved in.
Raquel Welch, Robert Culp, Ernest Borgnine, Strother Martin, Jack Elam
A western. After a failed bank robbery, three bumbling brothers come upon a lone house in the desert. They kill the man of the house and rape his wife, Hannie. The trio burn the house and leave her. Hannie survives hoping to one day get her revenge on the three gunmen. She runs into a bounty hunter who begins to teach her how to handle and fire a gun with some sort of accuracy so she will be able to exact her revenge on the brothers. Raquel has never had a better figure in any other film.
Whomever edited the audio on this deserves to be stuffed into a burlap sack with a hornets nest and a goose and thrown into a river. My ears HURT. I had to keep turning up the volume to hear the dialog, and then quickly driving the volume down every time the musical score started up. The gunplay and explosions seem to have been done at realistic sound levels -- dialog at 50dB(C) and the gunshots at 140dB(C) -- ouch!
Despite what is being said about the lack of bass extension on another thread - this is an "impactful" movie (yes it is lacking a bit with the real low stuff). I grew up in a small rural town, my wife in the big city - this is why she didn't care for the movie, and probably why I am more generous by giving it a 3.25/5.0. For me it was worth a rental. (Then again any Friday night movie I don't fall asleep midway - warrants a 2.5)
I really wanted to love this movie as I've been looking forward to watching it for quite a while! I really enjoyed the first two movies. I didn't feel this movie was as good as either of those, but (as has been said before in the thread) was better than the third installment in the series. The first of this movie just seemed to be a rehash of the what's been done in the others (think of all the sword fighting scenes). I was actually a bit bored early on, but it did improve.
So, fun movie after the opening bit, but not as good as the first movie by any stretch.
Watched Cowboys & Aliens (Theatrical) late last night, 4.7 out of 5, very enjoyable BD presentation with Excellent PQ & AQ and LFE ... liked the story and had two of my favorite types of movies: Westerns & Scifi combined. Going to watch the extended edition soon as I thought I was pressed for time ending the movie about 12:30 am then ended up watching most of the extras.
Fun movie.
Watched Cowboys & Aliens (Theatrical) late last night, 4.7 out of 5, very enjoyable BD presentation with Excellent PQ & AQ and LFE ... liked the story and had two of my favorite types of movies: Westerns & Scifi combined. Going to watch the extended edition soon as I thought I was pressed for time ending the movie about 12:30 am then ended up watching most of the extras.
Fun movie.
Glad to hear that it is a good movie. To be honest I was going to shy away from this one because it looked goofy. I'll have to check it out.
I really wanted to love this movie as I've been looking forward to watching it for quite a while! I really enjoyed the first two movies. I didn't feel this movie was as good as either of those, but (as has been said before in the thread) was better than the third installment in the series. The first of this movie just seemed to be a rehash of the what's been done in the others (think of all the sword fighting scenes). I was actually a bit bored early on, but it did improve.
So, fun movie after the opening bit, but not as good as the first movie by any stretch.
Watched this last night and have to agree. I really missed Keira Knightley in this one. The beginning really was quite boring. I found myself surfing the internet while the movie played. It did get better toward the end, but not enough to elevate it past 3/5.
Watched an old one "How the West Was Won", on Blu-ray originally shot in Cinerama (either missed it when I was very young , or forgot it because I am getting old).
I believe "Basement Bob" previously mentioned this, and peaked my interest - picked it up on sale at Frys.
I give it a 4.0/5.0 for several reasons:
-I like old westerns
-This one has LOTS of the older big name stars!
-And it includes a VERY interesting special extra - an excellent documentary on Cinerama and all of the lesser wide screen movie formats that followed (Panavision, etc).
All of "scope screen, curved screen, special len-types.." really should give it a rental.
I'll chime in since we saw one last night that was worthy. "Water for Elephants" was a joy on many levels. Well written, well acted....and a story that I cared about! In it's genre, I'll give it a 4.5 of 5.
Quickly...
Disappointed in Super 8 and Pirates3.
Change Up was funny but filthy. My wife left the room again. Comedy has really stuck to the theme and success of The Hangover. Unfortunately.
Action throughout. Well put together. Good filming. Stuff to look at.
It's a bit formulaic, and it's not Hitchcock, but I think it still qualifies for 'a plot' throughout.
Reminds me of the emotions I had watching 007 films in the 60s and early 70s.
She's a tiny gal, so most of her actions are using force multipliers. Her tinyness is also a force unto itself, given some of the tiny places she gets into. Once she's pitted hand to hand against an unsurprised opponent, and he throws her into the wall repeatedly and pulls her around by her long hair, only to be done in by a toothbrush and front slide removal (in the script "she empties her gun into him" -- obviously a last minute directoral replacement which wasn't a great choice)
Quote:
The action, ... Cataleya seems to be both omniscient and omnipresent, capable of arming or disarming any device, adept at crawling through or climbing over any obstacle in her path without ever smudging her sexy eyeliner. In fact, there's only one scene where she seems to be in any real danger: a visceral, bruising sequence of hand-to-hand combat featuring towels and toothbrushes reminiscent of the third "Bourne" movie.
Quote:
From writer/producer Luc Besson (The Fifth Element, Leon The Professional, The Transporter series, Taken, District B-13, La Femme Nikita ) comes Colombiana. Zoe Saldana plays a young woman who has grown up to be an assassin after witnessing the murder of her parents as a child. Turning herself into a professional killer, she remains focused on her ultimate goal: to hunt down and get revenge on the mobster responsible for her parents' deaths.
Actress Zoe Saldana was in Takers, and The Losers, and Avatar and Star Trek (as Uhura). Can't say I liked her in any of those. But I think she nailed this one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by review
"Colombiana" certainly didn't impress critics. Entertainment Weekly's Keith Staskiewicz reported, "It turns into the same silly stuff we've seen before, a dish of revenge served not so much cold as reheated." Diva Velez of The Diva Review wrote, "Wrapped in B-movie trappings from its cliched script and implausible scenarios to less than thrilling action, the best thing 'Colombiana' has going for it is the lovely Ms. Saldana, who deserves much better than this." New York Post's Kyle Smith said, "Luc Besson keeps ralphing up scripts about beautiful lady killers, but that doesn't mean you have to keep seeing them."
A few reviewers out there cheered on "Colombiana." New York Daily News' Elizabeth Weitzman stated, "Zoe Saldana makes being an action hero look so easy in 'Colombiana,' you have to wonder why more actresses don't try it." Jordan Mintzer of The Hollywood Reporter related, "There are guilty pleasures to be had in this frenzied B starring Zoe Saldana, who gives an acrobatic performance that makes the overcooked material watchable." Glenn Kenny of MSN Movies said, "All killers should look this good doing their dirty work. It'd be a better world."
Moviegoers enjoyed "Colombiana" for the most part. Shad M. said, "What a good way to end the 2011 Summer Movie Season with an action/thriller film... The story, script, characters, and everything the film have to offer really shows how a mediocre film like this one can really stand out from the others. Zoe Saldana... played her character Cataleya at a top level. Overall, the film is something moviegoers will probably like. It's a pretty kick awesome girl action movie!" Thomas V. commented, "Good script, and well acted. Lots of action kept your attention." Melanie S. stated, "It was a blast...literally! It did everything a movie in that genre is supposed to do. Jolie may want to watch her back."
A few members of the movie audience felt Colombiana's mission of revenge was a failure. Liam G. complained, "Zoe Saldana is a convincing action movie heroine, but Oliver Megaton's revenge thriller is filled with horribly filmed and edited action scenes for the most part, unnecessary sub-plots and nothing to make us interested in the story or characters." Zainab O. stated, "SO cliched, predictable [and] cheesy. Very disappointing, the script and direction just sucked." Beau R. expressed, "Columbiana should never have been made. It's just a mundane Jolie movie without Jolie. The story sucks, the setting sucks, the performers suck. Unnecessary waste of time and money."
A prequel to "Planet of the Apes (2001)", and having little in common with the "Conquest of the Planet of the Apes (1972)", I thought the first half of the film was interesting and perhaps this would be a popcorn worthy film, but the last half really didn't engage me. Ironically I know someone who found the first 45 minutes boring, but liked the last half. Your mileage will vary.
During the final credits, the end of mankind is signified by an airplane pilot spreading a man made desease world wide; leaving the planet available for the apes.
Although both the 1972 and 2011 share a common premise -- the end of the world is mankind's own fault -- the 1972 it was slavery and civil rights and big brotherism with a little Einsteinian physics and the fluke of our place in the evolutionary ladder thrown in for good measure, whereas in the 2011 it's mega pharmaceutical companies doing bioengineering and biowarfare and the lesser man's man's inhumanity to man that is the downfall of our species.
The Ape CGI needs a bit more work.
I suspect that people who haven't seen the 1970's versions, will enjoy this 2011 version more than I did.
Quote:
The original Planet of the Apes films were NEVER about apes. They were about humanity; man's good going hand in hand with his evil(with apes as stand-ins for our society). Not understanding that is missing the point entirely, like this simplistic, clichéd, very predictable film did.
Quote:
the old Planet of the Apes movies. They were original and a little philosophical, the movies made you think about what really makes a person a person. These originals gave me a look at cultures very different from my own. The apes were people yet not people.
Well I'll be....here I was complaining about the Hollywood "pattern" when a surprise drops in my lap. Crazy, Stupid, Love- Smarter, funnier and more tasteful than anything I've seen in a long time. AND, WAIT FOR IT....a movie with something to say, and it's a POSITIVE message! By the end, I was motivated to be a better husband, father and friend.
This was a great example of handling adult themes in a tasteful way. Steve Carrel has shown his acting abilities are far broader than the casting he's chosen.