Imagine if a sequel of Predator was directed by the guy who told vagina jokes in the first film. That character was useless for the development of the plot and was the weakest in combat compared to the other mercenaries, his only quality was make people laugh with his silly jokes.
The Predator is directed by the actor who played that guy and it is exactly like that character.
The plot is weak, the action is not good enough but the comedy is good (if you like black humour and silly jokes). I give 6\10 only for this, because the jokes are funny and the soldiers likeable but actually this is the worst film of the franchise (i've not watched Prey yet though).
Way better than the previous one. This sequel is more focused on action and gore, i expecially liked the shorts "A Ride in the Park" and "Safe Haven", they have good stories (the idea behind the first is brilliant) and most of all they are masterfully directed.
Indeed they are directed respectively by Eduardo Sanchez (The Blair Witch Project) and Timo Tjahjanto-Gareth Evans (The Raid), masters of their craft.
The first short is great (Amateur Night), the others range from mediocre to bad.
"The Sick Thing That Happened to Emily When She Was Younger" has invented the "computer screen horror genre" but there are much better films shot in this way (for example Host 2020).
The story that links all the shorts together is crap, it's also supposed to be one vhs tape but the action is obviously shot by multiple cameras and some of them are clearly digital cameras. Furthermore the first story is recorded by a pair of spy glasses, why they are seeing it on a vhs tape?
I have the impression that this was a fun and innovative take on the horror genre in 2012, but it hasn't aged so well now.
This Predator sequel moves the setting from the tropical to the urban jungle. The idea of putting the Predator into a conflict between criminal gangs and the LAPD and an internal conflict between the police and the FBI works fairly well.
Even the protagonist and the characters, although they are stereotypes of the 80-90s action-crime genre, are fun to watch.
The action of course isn't on par with the previous film but it's still good, and there are some remarkable scenes like the gunfire at the beginning and the predator's assault at the mob boss apartment.
What doesn't work so well is the Predator.
The psychological characterization of the alien is completely wrong. The predator of the first film was interesting because he was a super-technological and intelligent hunter who stalked his prey and killed it silently, but here the Predator is described more like the classic Hollywood monster, that is physically stronger but dumber than humans. An example is the metro scene, an attack that doesn't make sense. There's even a scene in which he climbs a skyscraper and yells at the top, the King Kong reference is clear.
Even the physical aspect is much worse than the previous film, here the predator is disproportionate, he has a head that is too large compared to the body and he is massive and clumsy in its movements. Finally the idea of making the mouth look like a vagina (and of having the protagonist make fun of it) is absurd. The predator should inspire fear and terror, not hilarity.
"I couldn't help admiring him. He was so wise. He had a deep knowledge born of a lifetime spent in the wilds. He was goodhearted, generous minded. He could think of a man he'd never met, and that he probably would never meet."
A film more actual than ever, in times of war and ecological destruction, if we continue on this path Amba will come for the human species too.
Never a film title was more apt.
This film is definitely wild, sexy, full of passion and with over the top memorable characters.
Bluray quote:
"This is a snakeskin jacket! And for me it's a symbol of my individuality, and my belief... in personal freedom."
Clever parody of the youtuber's world and the found footage horror genre. Homage to Raimi's Evil Dead saga. Extremely funny and quite scary.
Interesting theme and characters but the direction is too simple (it looks like a tv movie sometimes), the plot predictable and the social criticism too basic.
"Good Time" is a very similar film but it is much better because it has creativity, unpredictability and more depth.
In short Good Time is a brave film while the only thing that's brave in Emily the Criminal it's the protagonist.
The plot is not so original and the themes are perhaps better explored in other movies (like Shorta\Enforcement for example) but the action is marvellous and unique.
Best action film 2022 and one of the best action films ever.
Shame it was released on Netflix with its crappy picture and audio quality and not in theaters and on Bluray.
Finally Marvel makes a good movie (Guardians franchise aside), great cinematography inspired by German expressionist cinema (even the protagonist looks a bit like Conrad Veidt), good direction, fascinating characters.
It's a pity it is too short, it should have been at least 30 minutes longer, expecially because the rushed finale.
Hope to see another movie directed by Michael Giacchino with these characters
Trite plot, annoying dialogues, chaotic cgi action, waste of good actors. Well done Russo bros...
Pure action flick, just like The Raid or John Wick with a female protagonist and a medieval setting. Fun to watch if you like movies focused almost exclusively on action and combat choreographies.
Not as good as the titles mentioned above of course but still worth watching.
"A sadist never understands why others aren't enjoying his sadism as much as he is"
Entertaining movie that steals a lot from other videogames and films, from Wolfenstein to Ingrorious Basterds.
Nothing special or unforgettable, but it's fun to watch, mostly for the action, vivid photography, and great special effects
If Deliverance and Platoon had a son this would be Southern Comfort.
Disappointing debut for great action director John McTiernan.
The problem here is not the direction, the actors, the cinematography etc.. the problem is the story.
It may not be a coincidence that this is the only film written by McTiernan in his entire filmography.
The story is confusing, there are many interesting elements but they are poorly developed and combined even worse.
In my opionin the film should have stuck to the story of the anthropologist who discovers a tribe of urban savages in Los Angeles. Instead the film adds a lot of random horror stuff like haunted houses, ghosts, nuns, which turns the plot in a nonsensical mess.
Nice noir film that expresses well the fears of infiltration of Nazi criminals in the respectable American society of that time.
Good cinematography, good pace and enjoyable performaces of Robinson and Welles.
Most interesting is the character of Mary, the unsuspecting wife of nazi general Frank Kindler who is torn between standing up for her husband or working with the police to arrest him.
I think a remake that explores the theme of the fascination of evil even more courageously without the constraints of the moral code of that time would be interesting.
One of the best fighting movies of all time.
Boyka deserves a place in the pantheon of action heroes and Scott Adkins is one of the greatest martial artists.
Good:
-Excellent action, as spectacular as the previous movie but since this movie is focused on an international prison fight tournament there is much more action than the second one.
-Boyka steps up as the protagonist and he is more furious than ever (great perfomance by Scott Adkins)
-The other fighters are convincing and well distinguished. Each one of them has his own features and his own combat style and this makes the fights entertaining and unpredictable.
-The main villain Dolor is a real a.hole
-The ending
Bad:
-The plot is shallow and predictable. It's the reason because i think this film despite the outstanding action is slightly worse than the previous one.
-The buddy relationship between Boyka and Turbo doesn't work so well and the scenes that are supposed to be funny are actually not.
Bluray Quote:
"God has given me a gift. Only one. I am the most complete fighter in the world" - Yuri Boyka
Everything wrong with this movie:
-It takes itself too seriously. The introspective narrative voice, the coming of age drama, the constant references to religion are shallow.
These things are not enough to make a "The Road" with a vampiric background
-The plot and the world in which the film is set are full of inconsistencies. At the beginning, the narrator tells us that the situation is desperate and those who have decided to stay together in cities and villages have not survived. A little later they enter a fairly populated city where everyone gets along well and there are also enough resources for everyone...
The protagonist tells us that, however, he doesn't want to stay because his destiny is the street and vampire hunting... later on in the film they load up their car with all kinds of people (a nun, pregnant women, a man that could have been bitten by a vampire, who could slow them down and hamper them in their hunt for vampires) to go towards New Heaven which is supposed to symbolize a return in the civilized world...
-Vampires in this movie are retarded zombies. At one point a character is left alone at night without weapons in the midst of a herd of 6-7 vampires, he comes out unharmed (we don't know how since the director doesn't show us anything) . Also the scene of the vampire trap with a bloody teddy bear is hilarious.
-The main villains of this film are a clichè group of religious fanatics that have no purpose at all except create chaos, rape nuns and kill the protagonist of the film.
-The final fight is ridiculous, an highlight of the film solved in 2 minutes.
In summary this is a zombie movie without what that makes zombie movies great (the desperate fight for resources and survival, the collapse of trust between people, the selfishness of humankind in desperate situations, the fear that anyone could have been bitten and turn to a zombie/vampire at any moment, the presence of an ubiquitous fearful and implacable enemy etc..)
Good:
-Ving Rhames character and performance. A real a-hole. The only reason to follow the film until the end is to see if his ass gets beaten.
-The juxtaposition between the two boxers. Snipes, quiet and decent guy who is in prison for having commited a crime in a burst of jealousy and Rhames, arrogant, evil guy incarcerated for rape.
-The final fight. Full of action and suspance
Bad:
-A waste of good actors. The plot and the characters (except for Rhames) are weak for a film that has Wesley Snipes, Peter Falk, Wes Studi, Michael Rooker in the credits
-The direction is bad and this is surprising considering this film is directed by Walter Hill. It often looks like a tv movie or a mtv video clip, chaotic fast editing and cheap hip-hop music make things worse.
Bluray Quote:
"I'am not an athlete, i'm a gladiator. People play baseball, nobody plays boxing" - Iceman
"Yo dawg i heard you like zombie movies so i put a zombie movie in a zombie movie in a zombie movie"
Good:
-Metacinema at its finest
-Masterful direction, the opening long take is superb
-The second part is clever and funny
Bad:
-This film is half horror, half comedy. They could have added another layer to the story if real zombies showed up at the end to close the circle (horror-comedy-horror).
Bluray quote:
"PUM!"
Good:
-Astounding action. Direction, cinematography, sound effects and all the technical aspects of this film are extraordinary
-Realism. In an era in when even dialogues between characters are shot in front of a green screen, the fact that they decided to shoot this film in the air, with real planes doing real maneuvers and to put the actors inside a real cockpit must be praised
-Tom Cruise. The film is basically a celebration of the actor and his acting\action skills
Bad:
-More a remake than a sequel. There is little of original in this film.
-The non-action scenes. A lot of them are bad copies of what we already seen in the first movie. The themes are also recycled from the first film but explored in a worse way.
-Actors (Tom Cruise aside of course). An ill and mute Val Kilmer has still twice the charisma of all the new actors they introduced as pilots.
-Romance. Forced and compared to the love story between Maverick and Charlie in the first film terrible.
-Why didn't they call back Kelly McGillis? For a film that focus a lot on nostalgia, her absence is a serious shortcoming.
DVD Quote:
Rooster: "I saved your life!"
Maverick: "I saved your life! That's the whole point!"
Pro:
-Good halloween atmosphere
-the 3 iconic masks and the unforgettable Silver Shamrock commercial
-Very good soundtrack and effects
-Charismatic protagonist and villain
-Critic to consumerism
Cons:
-The title (this should have been a standalone movie or the beginning of a new antologic saga)
-The Plot. The fundamental idea is good but the story is full of plot holes and wtf moments (Robots and snakes, come on...)
If you like 80s sci-fi\horror movies you'll like this film.
It is full of references to a lot of classics of that era (Close Encounters, Friday the 13, The Thing, Invasion of the Body Snatchers etc...), it's not a great film but it is not as bad as the ratings say, it's not boring, there's plenty of gory action and there are some wtf moments that make you laugh.
A mix between REC and The Descent but poorly written.
The setting is great, the real Paris catacombs are amazing and the idea of a group of people trapped in there and their only escape is to dig deeper is brilliant. The decision to shoot it in the found footage format is nailed and the camera work is good. Too bad the characters are lame and the story is inconsistent and stupid.
Someone should hire a real screenwriter and make a remake of this.
"Fake it until you ... go insane and start swallowing needles and batteries"
Hunter (played beautifully by Haley Bennet) is a kind hearted and naive young girl who tries to be the perfect wife, in return she receives the indifference and oppression of her husband and family.
In response to this gaslighting situation, she begins to rebel by swallowing dangerous objects.
Swallow is a psychological horror where terror and violence are sneaky and mean. The film perfectly manages to put us in the role of the protagonist, we feel weak and helpless and we suffer with her the psychological violence inflicted on her by her family members. The other characters, from the husband, to the in-laws, to the psychologist, even if they never lift a finger on her, are a collection of monstrous characters.
Swallow is a very interesting film, never boring, well directed and photographed.
Highly recommended, expecially if you enjoyed movies like Gaslight with Ingrid Bergman, The Invisible Man (2020) or the more recent Men by Alex Garland.
Good concept, mediocre development.
A lazy, unfaithful husband seeks redemption by building a house in an abandoned, haunted old brothel.
With these premises I was expecting a horror movie about a haunted house with a sexual/erotic touch but for 2/3 of the film there is no sexual tension or tension whatsoever. Just marbles rolling on the floor, broken pipes and sperm leaking from power outlets...
Luckily the last 30 minutes lift the film from very bad to mediocre, and the director manages to show that he has a little of Sam Raimi's talent (the film is clearly inspired by his works) by filming one or two funny and scary scenes. But it's too late
