Movie Reviews 2.0

Came out of a movie theater screening Spectre a couple hours ago. It was pretty good.

Considering how much I liked Skyfall, it would have been really difficult following up its success to any major degree, but Spectre comes decently close by and large. It can't quite fire on all cylinders, but it's a rather good movie all the same. Craig gives his usual very solid performance as rugged, worn-but-still-potent bad-boy Bond, a character he's kind of made his own in these four movies - or maybe nailed closer to the original books than anyone apart from Timothy Dalton.

The movie opens in the usual way into the pre-credits sequence with a very impressive, very long single shot setting the scene and atmosphere, then an extended rather crazy action sequence follows as is the case these days. It's quite well staged. Onwards we get Bond doing some investigative agenty-type stuff to close in on his prey, which is the stuff I usually enjoy more than the over-the-top action sequences, but seems much harder to write, so doesn't take up all that much time in most movies like this one; another fight scene always lurks fairly closely around the next corner so Spectre never has a chance to become too cerebral... :p (L.A. Confidential being one of my all-time favs and a personal benchmark, I might add in passing.)

Where the movie perhaps fails is that Spectre as an organization fails to really scare, ultimately. It is mostly nebulous, intangible. Not quite so in your face as the Connery era Spectre in particular with their volcano crater villain lairs and whatnot. But then again maybe it's just as well there wasn't a volcano lair after all.
Just a crater lair, as a homage no doubt. A lair made of explosive natural gas, just like in Quantum of Solace. *ahem* :LOL:
The movie's attempt to tie together all previous Craig-Bonds also feel strained. There's really no logical ties between these movies other than what Spectre makes up on the fly, or that's the way I feel anyway.

I'd rate this movie...hmmm... Maybe a strong six, weakish seven? Out of ten, where a five is a properly average movie and not kinda crap, as most reviewers tend to grade things.
I haven't liked any of the Craig bonds.

I saw this one and can't say I care much for it either. It was entertaining enough but to me its like an appetizer for things to come later in the month and year.
 
BOO! Hiss! :)

Out of curiosity, which Bond is your favorite?

who was the one in the 90s ? The one that did golden eye and stuff ?

I think I like that one cause I grew up with it and it had some good helpings of cheese with everything.
 
I watched Avatar again after only seeing it once long ago on my smaller old TV. Now that I have a high-end 65" Samsung I can finally really appreciate this movie even more. The storyline aside, not what I'm focusing on, the effects are still absolutely amazing to this day.
 
I liked Avatar. A lot. Its story is not terribly original in most respects, but it's really well crafted and executed on pretty much every level, and the end result is a pretty epic experience IMO.

There's going to be three sequels, though...? That's pretty nuts. :p

Bought and watched Terminator: Genisys on BR when it first came out earlier this month. It was pretty much as I recalled it from the movies: plot a bit confused, overdone action sequences, but with good characterizations and a nice rapport between the different actors throughout. Whatshername, New Sarah Connor. She impresses hugely, again. Such an awesome action movie heroine, I wish there were more movies with such strong-willed, dedicated women! :p

Natasha Romanoff from the Marvel movies is one such other example in recent memory, but there aren't many other lead characters. You can almost count all of them on your fingers, and when including support characters, many of them don't even get to live through the entire movie...
 
Last edited:
I think I owe Genisys a 2nd watch because I keep seeing mini reviews which are completely counter to my opinion. I watched it recently and thought it was pure garbage and possibly the worst film I've seen in 2015. Strong-willed? Emilia Clarke is a wimp in that picture with absolutely none of the physicality of Linda Hamilton in T2. Remember that Emilia is supposed to already be a total badass and doesn't have to grow into it like Linda did across two movies. Utterly failed to convince me she was strong, physically or mentally. Arnie was more robotic than the robot he was supposed to play. The dialogue was so bad that I wondered if somehow I went back in time and wrote it. John and Kyle were so forgettable that I've mixed them up in my mind a few times, thinking back on it. It looked really nice, but a movie needs more than that.
 
@Rys
It's all in the eye of the beholder... :)
If you hated the movie the first time 'round, I personally would skip a second go at it. Save those two hours of your life, put them to a better use.
 
I was very pleasantly surprised. Probably all to do with expectations. Mine were extremely low so even though objectively it was hardly a great movie, I really enjoyed it a lot more than I thought I would.
 
I liked Avatar. A lot. Its story is not terribly original in most respects, but it's really well crafted and executed on pretty much every level, and the end result is a pretty epic experience IMO.

There's going to be three sequels, though...? That's pretty nuts. [emoji14]

.

That's pretty much how I viewed it the 2nd time around. Originality aside it's a wild ride that is executed so perfectly.

3 sequels??? Never knew they were even doing 1!
 
3 sequels??? Never knew they were even doing 1!
Yeah! I read in passing that Cameron had shot three sequels sequentially...! Can't remember where I saw this though; I'd previously heard he was doing two sequels - which ever since Back to the Future II/III has been considered almost dangerously ambitious to shoot back-to-back I believe. Before that, I only knew of one sequel... :p

I suppose The Matrix 2/3, the Ring movies (and Hobbitses) and maybe some other projects as well gave Cameron the confidence to go with two, or possibly even three follow-ups all at once.
 
I'm actually impressed that a good proportion of the lens flares in the Trek movies are from real light sources, not just the minds of mad people wielding VFX softwares!
 
A bunch of the real light source flares in the first JJ-Trek was a guy standing out of frame, holding a flashlight and shining it into the camera... ;)

Practical VFX! Not CGI flares! :LOL:

Well, I liked it. A lot. It set a really distinct visual style for the movie which set it apart from anything previously seen. I liked the way the original JJ-Trek was shot, and the cast and crew dynamics a lot more than I did the pretty bullshit story in the movie (red matter, tattooed, time travelling Romulans, and so on.)
 
Yeah, I liked the look for the first Abrams trek and the recasting of the characters was lots of fun. Left the cinema thinking that the next one would be great if they had a good story. Oh well...

Hope Simon Pegg has a good script in him for the next one. If it has any bit as poor as the Enterprise falling from the moon I'll do, er, some sort of thing that's within my power. Be grumpy for a bit I suppose.
 
I just like how he's been apologizing for that for years now. Like, it's just funny to me, outside of my intense disliking of the man's work.

I believe the PR turning point was inappropriate use of them during Super 8. I saw a whole ton of folks who liked ST 09's use of them complaining about that.
 
Back
Top