I'm a long time metal head. In fact I listened to Iron Maiden the first time in 1986 and got hooked. I don't differentiate between male and female bands. It's the music that is the factor.
Of course, being male, I'd by lying if I'd say I don't think some of the women are - let's put it that way - nice to look at. And of course some of them do use it more than others to their advantage. But if I don't like the music it doesn't matter how a singer looks. Just like I don't give a **** how she looks if the music is great.
As for the documentation itself. I think it was a bit to jumpy. I would have liked to have longer parts from one singer instead of instantly going to the next. But it was nevertheless interesting to listen to their stories. And I'm not a fan of anyone but (early) Doro/Warlock and I recently discoverd Anneke van Giersbergen. The others I don't listen to at all really. Which just proves my point. But I do respect their talent and their achievements and I think it's great that there is that much diversity in music.
It would be very dull otherwise.
I'm not sure where this movie stands in relation to the first. I'm not even sure how to rate it as I can find reasons to give it a "10" as I find ones to give it a "6".
Technically this is marvelous. The scope, the visuals, the sound - everything is amazing. But I feel lost in the story. The first movie was rather slow in moving the plot forward. Which was totally allright knowing there's going to be another. It was just a build-up, equally visually impressive. This one seemed like that, too, at first but there was a particular moment where I thought I must have fallen asleep and missed a huge part of the story.
A lot of the Fremen didn't accept Paul at first. Then he planned to went to the desert to learn their ways and become one of them. And literally a minute later he seemed back and accepted by everyone yet we never really saw what he did in the desert. From that moment the plot steamrolled and I felt like beeing in an avalanche trying to make sense of it. Another example: the Fremen where attacking Harkonnen left, right and center and bringing the Spice production almost to a halt. Then Feyd arrives and like 5 minutes later in terms of runtime they destroy the Seech (how did they find that when they seem to be having difficulties doing that before) and the North is in their grasp again with the Fremen running for the South.
Based on the David Lynch movie from 1984 (I didn't read the book) I expected certain things to happen but they never did. That did confuse me a bit. And where I cleary remember I still liked Paul at the end of the '84 version I can't say the same for this Paul. As I understand it these two movies cover Herbert's first book only and the (planned) next one is based on another one. I'm asking myself if it would've been better to make three movies from that first book.
So, is this now a "10" or a "6" ? I think it's in the middle. Maybe I change this in the future because of one thing I'm sure. With the prospect of waiting for another three years for the continuation I will have to watch this again. And maybe I will understand better where this movie stands.
The appeal of a biopic lies in the fact you want to know about the person it depicts. I'm a massive car nut, not necessarily Ferrari, but I still want to know about him because he sure was a carismatic figure. What I don't get is why every filmmaker today thinks the first thing they need to show us about a person is his sex life.
Another problem with biopics is you have about two hours and you need to pick a part of your topics life to show the viewer. Again, your choice falls to the problems resulting from his liasons. The movie opens with the explanation how Enzo and Laura built Ferrari in 1947 out of the rubbles of WWII. Then you jump 10 years forward to the point where they already are in financial trouble. I would have much rather watched how they built it.
Now, the racing scenes were ok. But they have done it much better decades before. The accident at the Mille was a real shocking, though. The violence shown in those pictures are in contrast to the rest of the movie, which was rather soft.
Acting was decent althought I agree the accents were too thick. Let everyone speak normal englisch, that way the viewer can assume they speak Italian but it's translated for us. Doing it like this gives the impression that everyone in Italy speaks accented english. Minor detail maybe, but it really felt cliched.
Overall an OK movie but if I'm honest I wouldn't recommended it to someone who wants to know about Ferrari. And for a casual viewer it's too generic. Could have been a fictional story altogether.
Maybe I should stop watching movies all together.
There I was, about to invest three hours into a movie about a man I thought to be one of the most interesting characters in human history, and it left me totally underwhelmed. In fact, I quit at the 2:20 hour mark.
This is not "The story of J. Robert Oppenheimer's role in the development of the atomic bomb during World War II." This was more about american communist paranoia, about political intrique then it was about a build up to an event that changed the world. And even that, the Trinity test, was a massive dissapointment to lock at. It didn't look like an atomic explosion but rather just a giant gasoline fire, which it probably was. No fascination or awe or even fear, on my part about the power of nature they just unleashed. Why not make a movie about the project, the challenges, the difficulties when all you can show us of Oppenheimer is - what really ? What did he actually do, what were his contibutions other then sitting in meatings and hearing others talk.
I would like to say the acting was great but I can't as there are hardly scenes where anyone has more then two lines of dialogue in a row. Or longer scenes at all for that matter. You try to put yourself in one scene and it switches to the next, and the next and so on. Add to that jumping throught timelines and you can be left utterly confused. Which will probably be the reason it get's tons of Oscar's.
For me it's a soulless, lifeless and, dare I say it, boring movie stuffed with a massive cast that seemed so wasted on this.
Skyfall ranks right between the first two Craig movies. Not as good as the first but much better then the second. As I've mentioned repeatedly I can live with plot holes and logic errors in Bond movies. They are almost a trademark.
It's interesting that the pre opening credits scene for this movie ends with a failure. That's an interesting approach and sets a different tone for the movie. Although you know he isn't dead. We then get what I consider the first real Bond theme song of the new era performed by the remarkable Adele. And I think she's on the same level as Shirley Bassey's "Goldfinger".
Another step up from the previous one is the cut-down on action and the much better, less hectic, editing. The stunts are still top notch and I'm always amazed when I watch the specials how much was actually done in camera as opposed to CGI. That is something I really appreciate.
As for the story itself - it's kind of a mixed bag. You have the old vs new angle which is ok. Bringing back characters like "Q" or Moneypenny in a much different form is a concession to the more modern times this franchise now lives. I'm fine with that, too. On the other hand I don't think I needed all that Bond backstory we got here. I never felt it was missing. The absolute weak point for me was the villain, Silva. Barbara Brocolli called him "probably the best Bond villain of all time" on one of the specials and I strongly disagree. Yes, he seems like a throwback to the Blowfelds and Dr.No's of the old movies. But he lacks style. I find him neither intimidating nor creepy. Just comical, almost laughable.
I'm sad to see Dench leave the franchise but she's been there for a very long time and it was probably the right time to move on to, again, someone younger. Which is a theme for this movie after all.
Overall "Skyfall" was entertaining to watch with highs and lows like pretty much every Bond movie. There only were a couple really bad ones. And this isn't one of them.
This isn't a bad movie by any means but after "Casino Royale" set the bar very high it was a bit of let down.
Despite having all the ingredients I never really felt I watch a Bond movie. I can't explain it but something felt off. I like Craig's Bond very much. The rawness and solitude his Bond displays. He's a wrecking ball instead of a scalpell at this point. His motivations are understandable and relatable. He feels human despite practicall being invincible.
I felt this movie had too much action for actions sake. Especially at the beginning you hardly had time to breath as one sequence chased the next. Which didn't leave much room to establish the story. And that's the biggest issue - the story. Too busy, too much cramped into a movie that is already among the shortest Bonds. Green didn't made a great villain. He was just boring. Olga Kurylenko's character was rather flat. She seemed more like an apendix than an integral part of the story. And did I mention the theme song ? No ? because it's that awfull.
The good stuff ? Judi Dench - once more. I do like her very much in this role. She took it and made it her own. And that's not taking anything away from her predecessors. Stunts are once more top notch but like mentioned above a bit too many.
The "Goldfinger" hommage scene with Gemma Arterton was nice. Especially since the did that one in oil. And one thing I noticed right at the beginning: I remember reading the press making fun of Craig that he got an automatic Aston in "Casino Royale". Writing that this Bond can't shift. Well the director seemed to making very clear this time that Bond can drive stick.
Brosnan's final outing as Bond starts as good as they come. After the opening scene it then leads into probably the worst Bond theme ever (Well, she got a role out of it, so for her it worked out). Unfortunately the whole movie never really recovers.
Now, I can live with the plot in general, be it a little bit ridiculous and stupid at times, as Bond movies were never known for their incredible writing or originality (oh, look, another diamond laden satellite in space). But this feel like they've entered the MCU and that's not to be understood as a compliment. The dialogues are extremly bad, like written by a teenager. The acting by everyone is bad to mediocre at best. And sadly this time that goes for Brosnan as well. There is nothing of the whit and panache of the previous movies. Rosamunde Pike still holds the record for not convincing me in any role I ever saw her play. Toby Stephens tries to portray the big bad villain and fails utterly. John Cleese is not even close to being in the same orbit as Llewellyn was. And Michael Madsen gives us his take on the overconfident, arrogant American. Oh, I absolute forgot about Halle Berry. Literally, she left that much of an impression.
Production wise this doesn't look to good either. While the opening sequence had a lot of pratical stunts the relied on CGI throughout the movie far too much. And in the early 2000s it just didn't cut it. Which has the result that it now looks extremely dated and fake. Addionally the sets do look exactly like that - sets. All that ice looked so fake it really hurts the whole movie.
This being the 20th official Bond I expected really something more. The little "homages" they put in where really lame. And yes, that includes Halle Berry appearance in Ursula Andress style.
While the movie has small fractions where it can be entertaining it fails as a whole and is by far the worst of the Brosnan era.
Oh, yes, that's more like it. This Bond has a great mix of humor, brutality, a dose of silliness plus tons of action. Brosnan instantly steps into the role of Bond and it feels like he's always been there. The tone of the movie is at times really grim and you sometimes feel you watch Rambo instead of Bond.
But I really need to do something about my memory. I had no recollection of Famke Jansen being in a Bond movie nor that Judy Dench has already been there with Brosnan. And she does a fine job giving us a very different kind of "M". And by that I don't speak of her sex. Famke was great also and she seems to have had a lot of fun with this role.
The theme song by the amazing, and sadly recently passed, Tina Turner is one of the best of the franchise and stands in stark contrast to the at times silly synth music used for the film.
One little weakness in the plot was that you don't believe for a second that Alec is dead simply by the fact you don't hire Sean Bean for a little teaser appearance. And since he then doesn't appear until later in the movie it's a safe bet he's the villain.
But like I said, little weakness. Overall a highly entertaining Bond movie.
Proof positive you need much more than Sean Connery to make a Bond movie. Whatever his reasons were to come back (having a say in the casting and creative influence f.e.) this movie turned out bad. And he looked about ten years older than he actually was. Which at least the'd taken into account.
Well, they couldn't use all the trademarks and it shows everywhere. From the opening scene this doesn't feel anything like James Bond. Funny enough some scenes actually do look like late 60s.
Concerning the cast: those aren't bad actors. But their acting is bad. But I guess they act like they were directed. "M" seems like a persiflage, totally over the top. Barbara Carrera is just a hanger for designer fashion. Her performance is one of the worst I've ever seen. I don't understand the Golden Globe nomination at all. And her final scene the most ridicolous thing. Brandauer is very bland as the villain. You can't say anything else above him.
And talking of blandness - re-heating an old story doesn't help. Seems to be that an original script would've been to expensive. And it takes about 1.5 h before the first decent stunt. It's also about the only significant one. I wonder where all that budget went. 36m $ compared to the 27.5m $ for "Octopussy" (all numbers imdb). Guess a lot went into Connery's pocket (actually it was 3m $ which was stupid money to pay for an actor back then). In case you'd like to know, roughly multiply the figures times 3.7 to compare it with today.
Like I said, in my eyes an unnessessary and forgetable movie. Well, since the boxoffice numbers were inferior to "Octopussy" we were spared another rogue Bond movie.
James Bond ventures into Space. How much bigger can it get ?
I know I'm rating this movie rather high but this one I must have watched a dozen times as a teenager. I absolutely loved it - I was kind of a space junkie. It sure is a product of its time with the Space Shuttle and the battle in space with laser guns. This was around the time that Star Wars and Star Trek were made so there might be some reason for that. According to imdb this movie was actually brought forward due to the success of Star Wars. The end credit of "Spy" said the next movie would be FYEO.
This one is another fun ride with the typical portion of Bond humor along the ride. There are some nice easter eggs in this one. Is it repetitive ? Of course, it's a Bond movie. It's almost in its DNA. You have a formula that works (stunts, beautiful women and grandious sets) so why change it. Those were the blockbusters of the time. And if you look at franchises like Marvel or Transformers they all follow there own formula. The story is mostly just the canvas.
Granted, it's not the best Bond movie so far, not even the second best. But I like this more than OHMSS. And not because Connery was back. No, that probably wasn't the best idea but one born out of desperation. His age (althought just around 40 he looked older) is clearly showing by now and he isn't as convincing as he was before. I do agree that there is a lot of sillyness in this movie. But in some way that's what I expect from a Bond movie. Not a parody but certainly a wee bit over the top. But it seems to be more aimed at an american audience. The addition of well known, and beautiful, american actress Jill St. John seems to add to that.
There is no mentioning at all of what happened at the end of OHMSS and I think that was a deliberate attempt to bury that movie. We start out again with Bond chasing Blofeld (again played by a different actor) around the world and presumably killing him. Which is later revealed to be a Doppelgänger. Not a huge surprise for the audience I might add. The two henchman Wint and Kidd add a little bit of creepyness and overall you get the usual plot holes and errors also typical for a Bond movie.
But it was "Goodbye" for Mr. Connery who carried a lot of the 1960s Bond with him. The next one would by the premiere for Roger Moore (who was the initial first choice for the character) who carries Bond into the 1970s.
The forgotten Bond. Or should I say the unwanted, unrecognized Bond.
But it's not Lazenby who's the problem. I mean, he may be part of it but he might have gotten criticism anyway because he had rather large shoes to fill. In the end he never got a real chance.
No, the main problem is the horrible script. It's cheesy and dull and there isn't much at stake. The movie felt off from the start with now Theme Song and flasbacks from the other Bond movies in the opening credits. There was no excitement going into it. I mean, there is an evil plot by Blofeld to destroy all plant and animal life on Earth. How ingenius is that ? (attention, sarkasm). And everything just so he'll be accepted as a Count ? And was that the same Blofeld as in "You Only Live Twice" I wonder ? He didn't seem to recognize Bond but he was asked how many millions he wants "this time". Which sounds like he was the same. Now, logic was never a strong suite of bond movies but this feels like a gaping hole. And the whole romantic angle ? That felt like a totally different movie. And it didn't fit. It felt completely hollow and constructed and it made no impact at the end. There isn't much more to say about that.
I also blame the director as he seem to have no idea how to get good performances out of his cast. Of course Hunt knew how to make movies as he was an editor for the first four. But knowing how to make a movie and making one are different things. Horrible German accents and weird, funny sound effects during the fights only add to the pile. And the movie was way, way too long. I checked the time after what I thought must be already two hours and I was just halfway in.
No, this was not a good movie at all. Bond or otherwise. Such a shame Diana Rigg threw away "The Avengers" for this one off appearance. And that after only being third choice for the role (after Bardot and Deneuve).
Despite being a huge Cate Blanchett fan this isn't the first movie of hers I didn't finish (Malick's "Knight of Cups being the other).
Having to sit through minutes of credits before the movie even starts, followed by a fifteen minute interview with the main character doesn't help to take me into the movie. So does not knowing all the musical terms they are using here. You hear the words but can't make sense of it (ultimately it might not even be important to understand it but you feel you should). Shortly thereafter another long scene at a restaurant were I again can't make heads or tails what they are talking about. I feel like I am already watching for an hour but it's just barely half of that and I'm looking for reasons to watch this for two more. After another fifteen minutes went by I give up. Why do I want to know more about this person, why should I care ? I don't know.
At the two hour mark, the movie just breezing by me, I decide it's not worth it for me. In the past I wrote somewhere, that I would watch Cate sitting on a chair for two hours. And I'd rather would've done that.
See, I can't even tell you anything about the content of the movie. I just described how I experienced it.
Not for me.
I don't know if i'd call this a reboot, remake or a sequel. It's a bit of everything yet nothing entirely. It's still a good movie that is underrated at 61 %.
I really appreciate all the little details and easter eggs that pay hommage to the original Superman movie. You can see that Singer is really a fan. Heck, they even made some of the flying scenes look a little bit dated althought I'm sure with the tech in 2006 they could have been much better. Story is OK for the genre but ultimately doesn't deliver anything really new or grand. Which is one reason I did not rate it higher. The other being, I was never a fan of the Superman / Lois romance. And, no matter what version, I never liked Lois Lane. And that, for me, takes up too much time in the movie. Trim that down, or leave it out, cuts probably twenty minutes of the running time. I might have even rated it higher. I know they needed something for the impact of him having a son. But I didn't like it, so ...
All in all still worth watching and ultimately massively better then the latest Superhero movies being put out.
Even my BluRay player refused to play this movie as if he'd remember something I didn't.
To quote Christopher Reeve: "Superman IV was a catastrophe from start to finish. That failure was a huge blow to my career."
And the sad part in retrospect, he never got the chance to make another one. But I don't blame him for the failure despite co-writing the story. I think he wanted to make a story about the threat of nuclear destruction out of sincere worry. But the studio wanted crash, boom and bang and the usual silly comedy parts. Both of them mix very, very badly. Due to the lack of budget (it was cut in half shortly before production began) the SFX looks at times rediculous almost like those cheap scifi rip-offs that were made around that time. And pardon me for saying that, but Marc Pillow is one of the worst actors I've ever seen in a movie. His performance is a prime example of over-acting. Even Hackman's return as Lex Luthor can't save this movie from being a catastrophe. And pulling out the kiss and forget act on Lois again ? Really ?! They clearly had no ideas left.
In hindsight it's amazing to see how over the span of ten years they ran the Superman movies into the ground.
Still good but not as good as part one. In general too comedic and even stupid at times. And I noticed the dialogue was sometimes weird. Someone said something and then camera switches to another character and there's a slight pause beofore the reply. As if the editing was off.
The whole thing with Lois finding out Clark is Superman was weak. It was supposed to make him understand his purpose I guess. And then a full one-eighty by having her memory wiped with a kiss ? How does this work?
And another huge whole: if he steps into the chamber it can't be reversed. And then he finds the green crystal and everthing's just fine. And the control panels where still burned down so he didn't re-create the Fortress. Since he gets his power from the yellow sun anyway it's all very sketchy. At least a little explanation would be nice.
I found Zod a bit overdone. Only thing missing was him twirling his mustache. And I always had problems when someone talks about himself in the 3rd person. I understand the purpose of making him look overconfident or even mentally unstable. But on the other hand he looks like a caricature not to be taken serious.
Well, probably too much analyzing on my side and it's still fun to watch overall.
So, I found this in my collection and thought I watch it again. I remember I went to the cinema back then.
It's definitely from a different time. There are early stages of CGI but almost everything you see is real. Which works in favor of the movie. The sets are great and almost give this a theatre feeling. And the costumes are great, too. Acting shows highs and lows but Dustin Hoffman is stealing this movie. Well, he's the title character, isn't he ? Williams is OK, I felt he's holding back. Julia Roberts I think was weak.
The story idea is actually pretty interesting and I have to admit I shed a tear or two towards the end. I still can't go above a "7" rating as I think it's way to modern at times. Skateboarding kids and spiked, colored hair just isn't Peter Pan. Plus there is the issue that this is supposed to be a family or kids movie (or not?). Yet, people are getting shot (which is presented as being funny) and killed.
Most of it are pretty much the same issues I remember having back in 1991. It's an OK movie with highs and lows that goes through some length. Definitely worth watching but probably not repeatingly.
The next and (so far) final try to bring B5 back also falls flat on it's behind. It feels hollow, lifeless. Just bringing in one or two actors from the old days and then spinning a generic story around it doesn't cut it. It might even be a good generic story but it's not Babylon 5.
Second part isn't much better. Galen is back and shows Sheridan a future where Earth is destroyed and tells him how to prevent that. Sounds familiar ? Jepp, been there - done that. It's the old problem: JMS is trying to revive B5 yor years (still is) but he doesn't come up with something new and/or exciting. And even the new project (now scheduled for 2023) is just a re-heat. After all, he did create the ultimate story - a beginning, a middle and an end - and has already shown us the future. What else is there ?
The positives: in 2007 CGI had finally catch up so the station looks the best its ever been. On the other hand they made too much use of digital sets (probably budget). There are no sets of any kind to speak of. This was literally filmed in an empty studio hall. Both, Scoggins and Boxleitner do look great, thought.
After having now re-watched all the B5 movies I think I can honestly say, that other for the fact to once again see some familiar faces, there is no reel need to watch them.
Well, this was way better than I expected it to be. Which isn't that much of a surprise because many don't like it and I'm usually swimming against the stream. And since I have forgotten most of the previous movies, I could see this without comparing it. That's where a lousy memory comes in handy.
I like when they integrate real historic events around a fictional story. It's a "what if it is was like that ?" scenario you shouldn't take too serious. I also did like the undertone about war. How people where eager to get into it (which is actually true at the time) but how they all learn it's utter crap what you're being told. There is nothing glorious about it. It's people dying, period ! I did not expect that from a movie like this.
Some things were a little streched out. As much as I liked Ifans Rasputin I think the fight with him was a bit too long. You could probably shave another couple of minutes here and there. But overall It never felt boring.
So in an overall underwhleming movie year 2021, from my point of view, I consider this one of the better movies. Be it just for it's entertainment value.
Harris writes historical fiction. He puts a fictional story inside a historical event. I just mentioned that because I've read some comments saying they don't believe something like this happened. It's not based on anything that happened it's him toying with an idea.
I am a huge fan of Robert Harris and have read about all of his books. Many of his novels have been made into movies so I wasn't surprised "Munich" did, too. I can't say how it compares to the book because it is just about the only one I haven't read yet. So I look just at the movie.
Concerning the story - like I mentioned it didn't happen. But it could have, I guess. And that's what I like about Harris. He gives you something to think about. What if Chamberlain had had this info ? Would he still sign the agreement? Did he, like the story want's to make us believe, bought time ? And what if he didn't sign ? Would it ultimately changed anything ? No one can really answer that. It's all theoretical.
I think they got the look alright. You get something from the atmosphere of the time in both, England and Germany. Especially the German arrogance was displayed rather well. Jeremy Irons seem like the reincarnation of Chamberlain from all I know of the historical footage. On the other side Matthes wasn't a perfect look alike. Nevertheless his portrayal of Hitler was very uncomfortable to watch. And I mean that as a compliment. As a whole I did enjoy the movie very much. It's more along the lines of classic film making far removed from blockbuster cinema.
Funny how the reality of the science in this movie doesn't seem to apply when it comes to the survival of your protagonist. Because in reality she'd have probably died half a dozen times. And what does a medical engineer have to do with repairing the Hubble anyway ? Is it ill ?
Watched it for the second time to see if there is more to it then what I saw the first time. And it's actually worse.
The movie pretty much starts with the desaster happening and since up to this point you know about nothing about the characters there is zero emotional investment. Maybe make the movie a bit longer at the beginning so we can know those guys. The SFX and the grandious score makes this appear larger than it actually is. Reduced to the story alone it is a simple survival tale with a predictable end, where our protagonist has to jump through some hoops only to come out unscathed at the end.
Looking at the Oscars they are all technical and I can get behind that. Bullock itself was nominated but didn't win and , again, I am on board with the decision. I've seen much better performances over the years.
Judging by the rating I'm rather the minority with my opinion, But that's how it is.
I actually did it. I watched the Ewoks again. Let's look at this practical.
Don't take it too serious.
The movie is very well made. Everything from the sets to the costumes and the acting is, in typical Ridley Scott matter, flawless.
However the way the story is told is not to my liking. You have about 45-50 mins of content but, due to the multiple perspective way of storytelling, you have to watch it three times. It's a "he said, she said" that in the end isn't proven one way or the other because, let's face it, "God has spoken" and "an honest man can't die" is as stupid as "you can't get pregnant from a rape because if you don't enjoy intercourse you can't get pregnant. That's sience"
And there lies the biggest issue I have - the movie criticizes a whole society for there misogynistic ways but like with the above that was how it was. Women were property just like men could be. Or what do you thing all the folk working for those nobles were ? From our moral point of view this was wrong but pointing a finger back 700 years in time is easy to do.
Well, it's not a political forum here and I think I will attract comments with what I said no matter what.
The actual duel at the end was great, very well filmed, with the instense and brutality you imagine had to be there in a fight for ones honor to the death. But after sitting through more than two hours it wasn't enough to save the movie in my eyes.
I don't think this is a great movie, it's not even better than the first.
The positives are the same as in part one. The movie looks believable, it's not over the top. The stunts are practical and still look good today. But the story is flawed from the beginning on. It's constructed to fit a certain need and because of that is illogical.
No one in the whole CIA questions why on earth a trained super assassin like Bourne leave his fingerprint at a scene. That's the door slammed shut for me right there. It takes until the middle of the movie until some low assistant recognized that and instantly get killed. That's a prime example for a plot to fit a need.
Of course we have bad Russians and a US Government official working with them. That already wasn't original fifteen years ago.
And Marie's death only surves the purpose to remove her from the story so Bourne can go on his business. It had no weight and/or emotional impact at all. If not for the final scene in the first part there wouldn't be a reason for her to be in this at all.
What can I say, it's how I see it.
It took me some time to finally watched this movie. There was no specific reason, it just happened.
Meanwhile this has become a franchise with lots of movies and even a series (which I did watch but didn't particularly liked). This movie is OK in terms of its entertainment value. The story is as deep as it needs to be, no surprising twists and turns. Which I must say I see as a plus because I hate it when movies have too much of them. The action and stunts are good and, because they are physical, look believable. But the sound effects during the fights are a bit too much at times.
Matt Damon does a lot of stuff by himself and it helps sell the character. I'm not a huge fan of Franka Potente. By that I mean that I don't think she stands out in a way that it couldn't have been anyone else playing her part. At the same time I applaud the casting as usually you get some Hollywood sweetheart for that kind of role.
The romance was lame, though. You know from the second they meet this is going to happen. It's a trait of storytelling no writer can stay away from.
So why not a higher rating? Well, altogether the movie is rather generic. It goes from A to B to C checking boxes along the way. Still overall not totally boring and since I do own the trillogy I will now watch the rest.
This movie is listed as #21 of Tom Hanks' most successful movies by box office numbers and I don't get it.
Personally it is one of my favorites from him. It is not your usual Tom Hanks movie which is why I like it even more. Hanks, like always, delivers a great performance. He plays pretty much a bad guy but one you can sympathize with as he isn't intentionally evil. He's a victim of the circumstances and times he grew up and just wants to provide for his family. The movie uses the action scenes well as this isn't a revenge movie as such. Action is there when it is needed and not as a means to an end. It is mainly about the characters, about the relationship between father and son. Or fathers and sons for that matter.
Jude Law's character is really creepy and we have the great Paul Newman in one of his last physical roles on screen.
The film did age really well due it not being CGI and you will be able to watch it ten or twenty years from now and still enjoy it. It looks believable because of all the old cars they used and the set dressing. Hall even got the Oscar for Best Cinematography.
Like I said, the movie deserves more recognition.
For sure this isn't in the category of "unwatchable". But it is one of those sci-fi-action flicks where you have to suspend belief and logic. And depending on what you expected you might enjoy it or not. It can be that simple.
They borrow pretty much from every major sci-fi franchise of the last couple decades. Most notable Alien, Starship Troopers and Terminator. The whole stuff about Forester's character and his relationship with his father and daughter seems like an apendix to the story that doesn't want to gel with the rest. There just isn't any emotional investment or connection to begin with for me to care at all. Which pretty much only adds runtime to an already too long movie.
I actually like the idea that those ship crashed centuries ago and therefore no one could discover them in the present when they "arrived". But the implication they got out because of global warming and in effect killed humanity is a little to tongue-in-cheek for my liking. Like I said, if you start to pick at the story it falls apart rather easy.
So, if you have an afternoon, or evening, to spare, grab maybe a beer ond some snacks and take it for what it is.
According to wikipedia TMZ is a tabloid journalism online newspaper. That immediately raises a flag in regards to a topic like that. And the whole thing is edited like a very long trailer for the actual show.
Now, I am a firm believer that there is extraterestial life somewhere. But I don't think they (whoever) have been here, yet. And those videos are not really proof to the contrary. And why haven't we managed to take a single photograph/video that is not blurry, out of focus or shaky in over 70 years. Even by pure chance this should have happened. Those objects are not hiding. They are in plain sight. The pilot was talking he saw them daily for a year. He should be prepared to take a photo. And did you notice how those two men where always using phrases like "could" and "might" ? They are talking about possibilities not facts themselves.
This is still all circumstantial as proof, by definition, is sufficient evidence for the truth of a proposition. The proposition is: these are extraterrestial craft. And the videos's supposed to be the proof. Well, I don't see it. And believe me when I say: I'd love to. Because like I said I do believe.
Starts out good with Logan dealing with the loss of Jean. If the whole point of this movie was to bring him back from his agony I wonder why they choose the Japan angle. No, I don't read the comics. What I mean is that the whole story seemed to generic. You could have substituted him for any character and it would have worked as well.
Robbing Wolverine of his healing abilities was a nice idea but you know it wouldn't last. Unfortunately the story went a bit of the rails. The romance with Mariko, telegraphed from afar, makes no sense. I know that years have past since Jean's death but he's still madly in love with her. It feels so Hollywood to bring in someone new for him to fall in love with, too.
And the final fight is like something out of the computergame genre where you fight the big boss at the end of the level. An adamantium samurai with glowing swords is a bit too much for me. And the reveal was obvious as well.
Oh, I almost forgot Viper. That's because she's just that: forgettable.
So, first half great, second half meh. That's a rounded seven.
Is this a great movie ? No !
Is it an awful movie ? Again, no.
It places way more emphasis on effect than on story but within the context of a superhero movie it is ok. Everything is rushed through so that we can get to that final battle. All the elements that should have weight, like Xavier's death, seems just a nuisance to get out of the way. Even Jean's death felt just like a box to tick off. You knew it would be coming.
Magneto has become a one-dimensional, manipulating villain who has become what he claims to be fighting against. And why do all the Brotherhood mutants have to be some kind of tattooed, pierced, made up, leather wearing kind of thug/punk ?
The idea with the cure isn't illogical to me. If it is a genetic mutation it ought to be possible to work something like this up. Within the realm of scifi at least. The illogical part for me is a mutant than erases mutations. Wouldn't he erase his own as well ??
But they boxed themselves in a corner with this story. They killed off or "cured" so many characters that there was hardly anything interesting left.
The end credit scene beeing a foot in the door.
