Change Your Image
shamgar-1
Reviews
The Game Plan (2007)
pretty standard Disney family movie, but very enjoyable
This movie is not brilliant, nor is it terrible.
It's just one of many decent family movies: Entertaining and fun for all ages.
The storyline is pretty easy to predict and the movie has all standard elements for a 'buddy'-movie, but watching the though and cool Dwayne 'The Rock' Johnson humiliate himself is very funny :) I liked this movie for what it was (a decent, but standard family movie) and I'd recommend it to everyone who wants to view a nice movie with the whole family or grab some popcorn and watch the movie with your partner to forget the everyday stress.
Star Trek (2009)
A different, but great take on the Star Trek concept
Based on the trailers and all the talk prior to the release of this movie, I already knew that this Star Trek would be different than others and that I had to change my expectations accordingly and watch this movie as a slight different take on Star Trek as we knew it.
I did and I was not disappointed. One person here said it was Star Trek on steroids and I totally agree. The pace is faster, action scenes are more intense, Ships and battles have a more greatness about them and most characters seem a bit more natural instead of utopian.
While older Star Trek movies often seemed like a rather lengthy episode and seemed that they were filled with obsolete scenes just to make it long enough to call it a motion picture, this new Star Trek gives you the satisfaction of watching an action-packed movie which doesn't allow you to fall asleep of boredom.
Special Effects are absolutely stunning. Go see them for yourself.
The acting is quite good. The three main characters (Spock, Kirk & bones) are very convincing and well cast. I especially enjoyed Karl Urban as Bones. Simon Pegg also did a good job on Scotty. I found him to be very amusing. Only Chekov and Sulu didn't really impress me (I never liked Sulu anyway), but they only played a minor part in the movie.
The movie has some downsides however: - Due to the fast pace of the movie, some characters are introduced too fast to get really acquainted with them. - Villain (Eric Bana as 'Nero') is pretty generic. Although I like Eric Bana and he believe he did a decent job with the means he had. I think this character lacks some needed depth.
And of course there are some issues concerning the old star trek universe and this new (Chekov, who actually was still a little kid in the old star trek time-line) and the general discussion why such a reboot was necessary.
But if you let all those things go, then Star Trek XI is a great movie.
It's like comparing Peter Jackson's the Lord of the Rings to the original book by Tolkien. If you see the original as holy, then the new take will disappoint you and leave you frustrated, but if you see them as 2 different takes on the same story/concept, then you'll find them equally enjoyable.
I like both LOTR's as I learned to separate one from the other and enjoy the good things of both and now I am doing the same with Star Trek.
This movie has rekindled the Trekkie in me and I am looking forward to a sequel
Man of the Year (2006)
less funny, but more exciting than expected
When I rented this movie I expected to see another hilarious Robin Williams movie.
My expectations seemed to be false, but the actual movie didn't disappoint me by a long shot!
Although this movie is not the kind of movie which made me Rolling on the floor laughing out loud, the thriller aspects made this movie a nice little gem.
Tom Dobbs (Robin Williams) is a comedian who hosts a satirical news program, who decides to run for president when a lot of his fans encourage him to do so, as Tom dobbs has an outspoken opinion on various political issues. In the beginning, he takes his campaign seriously, but after a while he recognizes that he gets more support by making well-hit political jokes.
He actually gets elected for president, but unfortunately this unexpected victory gets stained by the knowledge of a computer malfunction which corrupted the election-outcome. The manufactures of the election-computer-system aren't happy with the employee who rang the bell and they start a dangerous hunt, which adds some good exciting tension to this movie. But overall this movie is still a comedy, so the conspiracy-theory thriller aspect remains rather civil.
The result is a movie which mocks the existing political structure with a good dose of humor and especially the campaigns prior to the election. Tom Dobbs is an idealist, but his ideals would probably not survive throughout the entire term, if he would remain president. He simply would have wanted to change too much as I expect that he has to work with existing politicians who may be too rigid and unwanting to compromise.
But at the end of the movie, you keep wondering if the world would actually have been a better place if a guy like him would become president as the character Tom Dobbs seems to be very noble.
The Seeker: The Dark Is Rising (2007)
Confusing, but less terrible than expected
My wife really likes the fantasy genre, which is good for her, but it also means that she hopes to find the little gems between the dozens of harry potter/LOTR/Narnia clones.
Stardust was quite entertain-able as was 'Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events', 'Bridge to Terabithia' was OK, Golden Compass was mediocre at best.
At first 'The Seeker: the dark is rising' seemed to be an OK movie like 'Bridge to Terabithia', so in that aspect, the movie was not as bad as I expected. I didn't read the book, so I didn't suffer from broken dreams, which might have forced me into giving this movie only 2 stars at best.
The special effects are quite decent. This is also one of the few productions which actually payed attention to historical authenticity in the medieval battle scene. But I expected nothing less from my former allies 'the Jomsborg Vikings'. And the 1650 'Inn' shoot, reminded my of LOTR's 'The Prancing Pony'-scene, which I really liked. The kitten was adorable.
Sadly, those are practically the only good points about the movie.
Acting: Aside from the casting James Cosmo (which can always count on my support), the casting was poor, or at least the level of depth the characters were given. The twin brothers act like the twins from the Harry Potter series, Amelia Warner sure looks pretty, but gets annoying once she opens her mouth. The character of Will Stanton was just sad. The older seasoned actors seemed to be without inspiration most of the time.
The dialogs were often stupid. Didn't Merriman get to say anything else than 'You are the seeker' oohooo?
Plot/storyline: I found it very confusing. A lot of the seemingly important things are not explained at all, while other things that did get an explanation, didn't really matter at all. the story leaps from point to point and all the while I got the impression that I missed something or that they have deleted some important scene. - Will Stanton is strong and has great powers, but when he meets the rider he doesn't uses any of them - In the church-scene they did destroy the mother of the Rider right? but in the present she's still there and the rider apparently didn't notice something happened at all. - Will Stanton doesn't even try to find the signs. I just happens to run into them when he is not looking. And all in the same village as well! If the Dark would have known this, he would probably have found all signs if he would thoroughly search this village in the past 1000 years.
Conclusion, why I still give it 4 points: - the special effects deserve 1 point at least - the amount of attention payed to the authenticity of the medieval/1650 scenes do give this production credit. A lot of high-budget movies with the biggest stars throw all authenticity overboard when filming medieval battle scenes ('King Arthur', 'Troy', 'Braveheart', 'Kingdom of Heaven' to name a few) - the acting was reasonably poor, but I have seen much and much worse. - at the end of the movie I was only slightly disappointed, but perhaps my initial expectations were not very high either.
So overall I think 4 points is adequate for a movie like this
Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End (2007)
Better than the second.
The first POTC movie is a real gem and we all knew that a sequel would mean more of the same: Hilarious jokes, funny characters, great and exciting battle-scenes and still able to maintain a gloomy atmosphere. In fact POTC uses the same ingredients as Indiana Jones.
In this perspective, Dead man's chest + At Worlds end, were decent follow-ups.
Story/plot: While Dead man's chest lacks a good plot and makes you often wonder if the story will ever go somewhere, At worlds end has one too many, but at least you had the feeling that the story is getting somewhere. In my opinion, the plot of restoring the divinity of Calypso was unnecessary and it contributed to much of the confusion near the end.
Acting: The acting is not overly different from the previous movies. This movie doesn't include the best actors, but a good dose of humor and over-the-top acting makes up for it. In the previous movies, Orlando Bloom tried to be funny, which he never was. In fact he was more annoying than funny. In 'At world's end' he doesn't try to be funny anymore, in fact his character has become much more grim and depressed and this is a great improvement over the last 2 movies.
Music: The Score is terrific, just like in the other movies. I really liked it and I definitely plan on getting the albums.
Jokes: The movie includes various styles of jokes: Ranging from obvious slapstick moments, over-the-top acting, to extremely funny dialog phrases ("Slap me thrice and hand me over to my momma" instead of "Wow" or something). When I watched the movie yesterday I almost rolled over the floor laughing.
Special Effects: Special effects are great except for the Calypso bit. A gigantic Jamaican women just looked stupid and I never understood the purpose anyway.
End: I see that many people are disappointed about the ending: William Turner becoming captain of the Dutchman, being separated from Elisabeth Swann, except for 1 day every 10 years (why cant he take her on the ship anyway) and Cap'n Jack Sparrow being bereft of his Pearl. Why does it have to be a happy end anyway? Although we all like Jack Sparrow, he is a terrible weak excuse for a captain. He is totally incapable of commanding a ship and the only reason people obey his orders is that they pity him or just like him (Biggs is practically the only one that is loyal to Jack no matter what). He runs, rather than stand and fight, he never takes responsibility for his actions but hides behind others. In my opinion it's highly unbelievable that he'll ever be able to captain a ship and crew for decades. Jack Sparrow is not a pirate, he is a dreamer who is in love with the sea. Barbossa is a much better captain and in my opinion it's only obvious that he successfully retakes the Pearl, although I feel sorry for Jack that he lacks the backbone to pursue his dreams.
10,000 BC (2008)
Agreeable
When I was shopping with my wife, we saw this movie on bluray for just 10 Euros. My wife thought she heard good things about the movie (I wonder which...), it looked interesting to me and 10,- for a bluray is a bargain even for 2nd-rate movies.
Although I often frowned at inconsistencies concerning time-frame, historical events, altered voices etc, I did find the movie entertaining.
CGI is good (especially for a 2nd-rate movie, although it's perhaps not meant to be that way), several beautiful scenery shoots, albeit that some also contain a decent amount of CGI. Clothing looks quite good: although it's not historically accurate, you can see that the filmmakers did pay a lot of attention to it.
Story-outline is perhaps a bit cliché, but it's a cliché that pays off. It's an interesting 'Re-writing' of history: The filmmakers didn't claim to be 'historical accurate', instead it seems that they ignored that on purpose. The movie introduces that many obvious inconsistencies (compared to actual history), that it more seems like an 'alternate'/'parallel' universe.
Although the acting is not great, it was decent enough (compared to the acting in most dutch movies or other 2nd-rate movies). D'leh is a like-able character: He starts out as an outcast with a 'forbidden' love-interest and gradually becomes the savior of many. D'leh is not a proud character (like many other hero's) but rather shy and although he just wants to save his love, against his will or desire, he becomes promoted as leader of the slave-revolt and in the end has to choose to save his girl, but leave the rest to rot in slavery or to risk her life and overthrow the slavers. During the movie there are many moments where you can see him think "Crap, I didn't sign up for this, I just want to be with Evolet and raise a family".
I would rate this move 6 or even 7 stars, if it was not for the weird time-frame (characters travel on foot from Chinese/Mongolian mountains/tundra, via Asian Rainforests to Egyptian Desert in a matter of weeks), lots of historical inaccuracies.
Vantage Point (2008)
Slow start, but exciting finale
I've read some of other reviews here and am amazed that A LOT OF people give this movie just 1 star, even though they still have many positive remarks concerning this movie. It's like they only give 10 starts or just 1, depending on whether they liked the movie or not.
I have watched this movie yesterday and while it's not that terrific to earn 10 points, it's not a complete disaster either. In my opinion, this movie deserves a solid 7.5, though I rounded it up to 8, as I had to choose between 7 or 8 stars.
The movie has an interesting viewpoint as to how to tell a story, which reminds me a bit of 'Memento' and 'Pulp Fiction'. At a convention (against terrorism, how cliché), the US president is shot, you hear 1 distant explosion (later in the movie you see where that was), followed by another one shortly after, killing hundreds of people.
The movie shows 5 different viewpoints of the circumstances of this event and ends with a 6th viewpoint, where the viewpoints of some remaining characters are combined. Each viewpoint takes you a bit further in time for a 'cliffhanger' effect.
The first viewpoint is more like an introduction. The second, third and fourth viewpoint have a lot of similarities. The second viewpoint is OK (of Dennis Quaid's Character), but the third and fourth hardly provide you with extra information. You practically see the same scenes, but with different camera stances. This becomes a bit dull. At the fifth viewpoint (of the President) the movie becomes interesting again as most of the scenes are NOT located at the plaza or in the streets so that you won't have to see the same scenes all over again. The sixth viewpoint (or rather combination of the remaining 'bad-guys' viewpoints) is a 15-20 minute thrill ride, with a great car chase scene, some nice 'SAS-style' shootouts, and of course revelation of the missing pieces of the puzzle.
Some scenes have deliberately been shot twice, to add an other atmosphere to the scene. As an example, you see a couple standing close to each other as if they have just kissed each other goodbye, later in the movie you see that this couple was not at all friendly towards each other. In fact they were more like threatening each other. As this scene is shot the first 2 times from the perspective of the 'jealous boyfriend' and the 'heart-broken tourist', the interpretation of this 'smooching' is a bit colored and this couple looks more friendly. The third time you'll see the same scene through the eyes of the man from this couple and see that he is blackmailed by the woman.
Everything depends on the Eye of the Beholder, which makes the slight changes in the scenes rather interesting.
Weak points in this movie: - Slow start, because of several semi-identical scenes, which don't tell you anything you don't know yet, the movie becomes a bit repetitive/boring in the beginning. (-2) - Because of cutting, the time-frame between events is not always the same (before the shooting, between shooting and first bombing, between first bombing and second bombing). According to some viewpoints there seem like only a few seconds between the two viewpoints, while according to other viewpoints the time-frame between these bombings seems much longer. (-0) - Most characters start with a blank sheet. It takes a while before several characters get a bit more depth. However this was necessary so that you wouldn't know which one is a good guy and which one isn't. (-0,5) - Some characters don't get any depth at all (-1) - Too many viewpoints, or better: some viewpoints don't add much to what you already know. (-1)
Strong points: - The 'Eye of the Beholder' style of changes in the scenes are interesting (what seems to be a kiss in the cheek to one, is a threatening whisper to an other) (+0,5) - The finale (last 20 minutes) is great! (+3) - Viewpoints 1, 2 and 5 are also interesting (+1) - some interesting plot changes, but it never gets far-fetched or difficult to follow. I like puzzles in stories :) (+1) - Aside from the 30 minutes where the movie gets slightly boring, you really get taken away in the 'whodunnit'-plot. (+0,5)
All in all, this movie is a nice action-packed thriller. It's not that great to make it phenomenal and make it worth 8+ stars, normally, but it deserves more than an 'average' 7.
Death Race (2008)
Not my idea of 'popcorn'-thrill
According to dutch reviews, this movie was not amazing, but not horrible either. Just a 'popcorn'-thrill ride like Transformers etc.
I like Jason Statham even though he is not such a great actor, I like his attitude and charisma, which was the main reason for seeing this movie (and the expectation of lots of explosions and high speed action).
I was not prepared for Gore-ish scenes, like the exploding head of 'Grimm' or the napalm burning of Travis Colt for instance, which were repeated over and over again. That is not my idea of a typical 'popcorn'-thrill ride. When the first half of the movie was over, I seriously thought about going home, but having spend 20,- on cinema tickets I decided to endure, hoping that the 2nd half would not include as much gore. The first half also lacked any character development: At that time the 'evil' characters were not developed yet, so whenever any of the drivers gruesomely died in the first race, I kinda felt sad for these needless deaths. Only at the death of Pachenko I thought 'Good riddance' and the death of 14K (and the others during the 2nd race when battling the 'dreadnought'), were acceptable losses to increase the evilness of the race itself and 'Hennessey', but this was already during the 2nd half of the movie.
Fortunately during the 2nd half the movie became much more entertain-able: The gore lessened, but the action increased with some interesting plot changes. Characters finally got some attention making it easier to be compassionate with the good guys and relieved when the nasty ones found their justice.
My overall opinion: - The gore level is a bit too high for my taste, even though this becomes more acceptable during the 2nd half of the movie. Next time I just watch Die Hard 4.0 if I want to experience some thrilling popcorn action. - Characters lack development in the first half of the movie. During the second half of the movie some characters finally do get developed. -/+ Average acting. + Interesting story/plot + Lots of action, but it does get slightly repetitive: emptying mini-guns on thick armor plating multiple times every race does get repetitive. Perhaps a more variety of weaponry would have been more interesting (Flamethrowers, Hydraulic hammers/battering rams or something) + Jason Statham is just cool :)
The Last Legion (2007)
A Lesser son of greater sires.
The beginning of the movie seems promising, but unfortunately after 15 minutes it becomes a mediocre epic movie.
Storyline: The Storyline is acceptable, in a way it's just another version of the King Arthur-myth, so there are a lot of familiar aspects. It has some good plots, but some are ruined by bad acting of the actors, while others are very cliché (the 9th legion coming to rescue when all hope has faded... hm... Rohan (LotR) anyone?).
Scenery's, sets, clothing: Scenery's and sets look pretty good, but the clothing is just horrible. The Germanic 'Barbarians' are dressed in typically Hollywood mindless barbarian clothing: horned helmets (which didn't exist), lot's of animal skins and dirt, which makes it hard to see their face. The Goths are typically casted as evil bad guys to be killed at will by the heroes, without any personality whatsoever. The truth is far from that.
Acting: The overall acting is terrible. The Goths: The acting of the evil barbarians is overdone, either they are plain stupid or too evil (Wulfila - Kevin McKidd), which combined with the ridiculous un-authentic clothing, makes you laugh at the sight of them. They are not intimidating at all. Only Hrothgar (James Cosmo) appears to be a bit normal, but James Cosmo is just cool :) Too bad he only got a small part in the movie even though he is the better actor (for proud, strong warlike types), because he was mostly the reason why I wanted to see it anyway. the Heroes: Ben Kingsley is doing OK. He seems to have fun, although his character is a bit weird. Colin Firth's acting seems more like 13 in a dozen 'Let's get this over with' kind of thing. He is very timid and seems mostly frustrated that he has signed to do this mediocre movie. Aishwarya Rai: looks pretty, but she is just not an actress
Good parts: James Cosmo, storyline is decent, but ruined by the rest of the movie
Overall: It's a mediocre epic movie. It claims to be in the vein of 'Lord of the Rings' but can't compete by a long shot. I think the movie 'King Arthur' is even better (and has a more believable explanation of the myth, although there are too many inconsistencies in that one) and that movie is not very spectacular.
I would rate it 5 out of 10, because the sceneries and sets look decent and at times the movie looks nice, but often it more looks like an unintended parody to the genre.