kino1969
Joined Oct 2011
Welcome to the new profile
Our updates are still in development. While the previous version of the profile is no longer accessible, we're actively working on improvements, and some of the missing features will be returning soon! Stay tuned for their return. In the meantime, the Ratings Analysis is still available on our iOS and Android apps, found on the profile page. To view your Rating Distribution(s) by Year and Genre, please refer to our new Help guide.
Badges3
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Reviews24
kino1969's rating
Hesitantly, I decided to watch this movie. I had just seen the AWFUL "Crystal Skull" movie (which I have reviewed), and I wasn't expecting this movie to be much better. The movie is really not all that bad, but it isn't the overwhelming garbage that "Skull" was, either.
Probably like most other postings (I am assuming, given the breakdown of reviews - I NEVER pre-read reviews before my own reviewing on IMDb), the movie has little that is original, and there are plenty of holes that are troubling. However, I was wanting and willing to simply be entertained, and I (and my family) were at that. Favreau, director of "Iron Man," still kept true to his directing form, with action and pacing that held my attention (more or less). What is faulty is the story, which seems to be missing about 45 minutes. I believe the main problem with the film is that some producer (why does Spielberg's name pop-up) said, "Favreau, keep it at 120 minutes! No one will watch a 3-hour movie!" (I will add the line: "I don't want someone doing a better version than my 'War of the Worlds' 'masterpiece'!" -sarcasm, you know) Oh, the agony, and with names like Craig (always wonderful) and Harrison (equally so), this movie should NEVER have had the restrictions placed upon it like it had. I firmly believe that the problem with the movie stems from its producers, not the filmmakers per se.
That said, the movie has Harrison doing a great Eastwood from "Unforgiven" impersonation (voice and face), Craig doing a sort of "Magnificent Seven" role ala Bond, and (even though I'm not into multiculturalism) some more realistic portrayals of Indians than the stereotypes of cinematic lore. However, the plot merely replaces Indians with aliens and "cowboys" with "Americans" and falls back to twisting stereotypes around. Politics aside, why would aliens want something as "rubbery" as gold? Where did all the aliens go who were fighting? Why were the aliens, who couldn't see well in the dark, so darned great at slaughtering? How do you get a giant into a flying Mini Cooper?
Again, it is an entertaining film, if you just let it play. It's has faults (to be sure!), but I believe that some hands were "tied" so that the movie that one sees is not the intended one, but one that was produced for public consumption. I was disappointed to see talent wasted, but with Hollywood and finances the way they are nowadays, it's no wonder.
6 of 10. Just for entertainment value. If it weren't entertaining, it'd be an easy 2 stars ------ E.
Probably like most other postings (I am assuming, given the breakdown of reviews - I NEVER pre-read reviews before my own reviewing on IMDb), the movie has little that is original, and there are plenty of holes that are troubling. However, I was wanting and willing to simply be entertained, and I (and my family) were at that. Favreau, director of "Iron Man," still kept true to his directing form, with action and pacing that held my attention (more or less). What is faulty is the story, which seems to be missing about 45 minutes. I believe the main problem with the film is that some producer (why does Spielberg's name pop-up) said, "Favreau, keep it at 120 minutes! No one will watch a 3-hour movie!" (I will add the line: "I don't want someone doing a better version than my 'War of the Worlds' 'masterpiece'!" -sarcasm, you know) Oh, the agony, and with names like Craig (always wonderful) and Harrison (equally so), this movie should NEVER have had the restrictions placed upon it like it had. I firmly believe that the problem with the movie stems from its producers, not the filmmakers per se.
That said, the movie has Harrison doing a great Eastwood from "Unforgiven" impersonation (voice and face), Craig doing a sort of "Magnificent Seven" role ala Bond, and (even though I'm not into multiculturalism) some more realistic portrayals of Indians than the stereotypes of cinematic lore. However, the plot merely replaces Indians with aliens and "cowboys" with "Americans" and falls back to twisting stereotypes around. Politics aside, why would aliens want something as "rubbery" as gold? Where did all the aliens go who were fighting? Why were the aliens, who couldn't see well in the dark, so darned great at slaughtering? How do you get a giant into a flying Mini Cooper?
Again, it is an entertaining film, if you just let it play. It's has faults (to be sure!), but I believe that some hands were "tied" so that the movie that one sees is not the intended one, but one that was produced for public consumption. I was disappointed to see talent wasted, but with Hollywood and finances the way they are nowadays, it's no wonder.
6 of 10. Just for entertainment value. If it weren't entertaining, it'd be an easy 2 stars ------ E.