Give YOUR Movie review

Two Film Reviews

Jack the Giant Slayer (2013)
starring: Nicholas Hoult, Ewan McGregor, and Stanley Tucci

Summary: The ancient war between humans and a race of giants is reignited when Jack, a young farmhand fighting for a kingdom and the love of a princess, opens a gateway between the two worlds.

My Review:
I actually don't understand why this movie is scoring so low on IMDb.com. I was not a huge fan of the more grisly details of the giant world, but the film was funny, action packed, and enjoyable. Ewan McGregor gave a lightly comedic and slightly serious performance that I enjoy seeing from Obi-Wan Kenobi himself. :D In fact, Ewan is the main reason I even watched the film. If you're listening to the critics and staying away, DON'T! If you like fairy tales, and you enjoy an action/adventure type of film with some comedy and corny moments thrown in, you should see this film. Think of it as a slightly less PG-rated Princess Bride (some of the light moments reminded me of the silliness of Princess Bride). I will mention one beef I have with this film, and that's the ending. It was an odd ending, and didn't seem to really fit with the rest of the film.

Rating: 4/5 (with the exception of the ending.)



Monsters U(niversity) (2013)
Starring [the voice talents of]: Billy Crystal, John Goodman, and Helen Mirren

Summary: A look at the relationship between Mike and Sulley during their days at Monsters University -- when they weren't necessarily the best of friends.

My Review:
*sigh* I had so much hope for this film. Maybe it was the quality of Monsters, Inc. Or maybe it was the high level of quality we've come to expect out of the Pixar studio. Even though this film was enjoyable, I didn't like it as much as the original. It was slow and nearly bordering on dull at times. Although this was an okay prequel/sequel, I didn't feel like it focused much on anything but Mike. I guess that was okay...but I don't know. I have really mixed feelings about it. It just was not the type of prequel I was expecting. I do have to say it was nice to see why Randall was so vile towards Sully, and to see the animosity develop was a good thing to help round out the first film. We even got to see cameos from several monsters from the first film, which helped to tie in this one to the original. Overall, this one can wait for DVD rental. It was not worth the $5.50 I spent for it in theaters.

Rating: 2.5/5
 
Thanks for the reviews, AK. I had wondered about both of those films, and I appreciate your take on them. I took my step-daughters to the original Monsters Inc a long time ago and we all really enjoyed it ... I was wondering if I would enjoy the new one without any little kids.

I saw "Argo" on my Kindle the other day. It was best-picture winner last year, I believe. It is about the Iran Hostage Crisis back in the 1980's -- 6 people escaped from the Embassy but only got as far as the Canadian consulate, where they were waiting for rescue before the hostage-takers realized anyone had escaped and would come looking for them.

IT WAS VERY SUSPENSEFUL. I admit, I wimped out and watched the ending before the middle because I just could not stand to wonder what was going to happen.

However, it also had a lot of language. If you can see it on network TV when they would bleep out the language, that would be better.

I would give it 3 or 4 out of 5 for adults only.
 
Dances with Wolves (1990)

Starring: Kevin Costner, Mary McDonnell, Graham Greene, Tantoo Cardinal, Rodney A. Grant, and Wes Studi

Summary: Lt. John Dunbar, exiled to a remote western Civil War outpost, befriends wolves and Indians, making him an intolerable aberration in the military.

My Review:
Not for the faint of heart. There is quite a bit of graphic [and bloody] violence in this film, as is the case with most Westerns made in the last 30 years. Now, I've gotten to the point where I'm not as squeamish with violence as I used to be, and I would rather watch violence than sex or language or whatever...but this movie does push the limit of its PG-13 rating, especially for the year in which it was released.

Don't get me wrong: at the heart of this film is a beautiful story. I very much enjoyed the Native aspect of this film and am glad that they included quite a bit of humor in it since that aspect of Native culture tends to get overlooked in hollywood. But I wasn't happy with all the crud. Namely: the language (good grief), two sex scenes (one between a married couple and one between a couple who wasn't married), backside nudity (namely Costner's), and some crude/rude humor. I would have liked this movie a whole lot more if all those elements had been non-existent or toned down somewhat. And can I just add: Wes Studi is one of the few actors who can scare the living crap outta me when I watch his stuff? He's so good at what he does that you almost feel like he IS that character. He's credited as "The toughest Pawnee" in this film, and that about sums up that character. Studi, for the brief time he was on film, proved yet again why he is such a talented actor and sorely underused in Hollywood. Rodney A. Grant and Graham Greene were also good in it as the main Native characters. Just gonna say: Rodney has got one of the most gorgeous heads of hair I think I've ever seen on a Native. I might be slightly in love with his hair. :D ;)

Rating: 2.5/5. Definitely not for those under the age of 18. I can now say I've seen this film, but I most likely will never see it again for a very good reason.
 
Good review, and I agree. Parts of Dances are beautifully filmed, and a lot of the acting is wonderful ... but the violence and grittiness of it is too much for me.
 
I don't know if this thread includes for television shows or series, but don't see another thread for my review. Also, I hesitate to criticize anything Christian. However, regarding:

Title: The Bible Miniseries

Year: 2013

Plot: Stories based on the biggest highlights/events in the Bible

Review: I have ony talked to/heard from a handful of people or sources regarding the series, though I know it has gained widespread attention. I have not watched it in its entirety, but from what I've seen, I'm sorely disappointed. I haven't talked to anyone like-minded...yet. There is such emphasis on visual effects to what I believe is the detriment of a retelling of salvation history. In the first episode, angels of the Lord are depicted as blood-and-gut Samuari-wielding warriors, an image I don't see when I read Genesis. It's just overkill. And while Satan is rightly depicted in a disturbing visual medium, his placement near Jesus comes across disordered in some scenes, at least to me. Personally, I think The Passion of the Christ captured Christ's suffering far more effectively. This series, though, just seemed to me like an attempt to "one-up" previous Christian works. That may come accross a bit harsh, but it's my authentic opinion and I don't begrudge anyone who enjoyed the series. I don't think the producers consciously tried to outdo former Biblical works, but they clearly did want this to be epic and large scale, and I think that in this transition they lost considerable substance. Such an approach is, perhaps, not very humble. So for me...this is just not my cup of tea.

Rating: 2 out of 5
 
Last edited:
tirian_son_of_erlian said:
I don't know if this thread includes for television shows or series, but don't see another thread for my review. Also, I hesitate to criticize anything Christian. However, regarding:

Title: The Bible Miniseries
Click to expand...

There used to be a TV series review thread somewhere here. I know that because I made it. :) But maybe this thread could be turned into a book/movie/TV show review thread? Title change anyone?

I watched the first episode of the miniseries, and I didn't even finish it. I was so aggravated with how it distorted the events surrounding Lot (and removing the real reason why Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed by God), that I just changed the channel. Haven't cared to see it since.

Have you heard that they are going to make or are wanting to make ANOTHER series that's a sequel to it?
 
World War Z

Ok, I said that I was afraid that Brad Pitt was gonna mess this story up. I don't know if I was right or wrong. This movie is about a scientist (I think) searching for the cure to the virus that's causing humans to become zombies (big surprise there). This story has absolutely nothing to do with the book. In fact the only thing the book and the movie have in common is that title. Some elements in the movie are vaguely recognized as appearing in the book, such as the Israeli Wall, which they built before the zombie outbreak and the fact that Israel was letting EVERYONE who was still not infected into the country for protection. And that's where the similarities ended. For a generic Zombie movie, this one is ok. Of course being Brad Pitt, the movie had to be about him. It's obvious when the young bright scientist Pitt was to help, who supposedly knew everything about the virus and the cure, dies by.... wait for it.... an accidental self-inflicted gunshot at the beginning of the trip to find the cure. So now you can guess how the movie goes on from there.:rolleyes:
 
Title: Rocky Balboa

Year:2006

Plot: Years after Rocky's last fight he now runs a restaurant in South Philadelphia, but is asked to return to the ring for a charity event where no one thinks he will stand a chance against a younger opponent.

My Review: I'm not big into sports or boxing movies, but the Rocky films have always held a spot in my heart, because of the representation of Philadelphia and Pennsylvania through the character of Rocky Balboa and where he grew up and lives.

The movie starts out very good. It has a lot of clips of the city of Philadelphia showing some of the best and most historic buildings of Philadelphia. We then get a view of Rocky waking up in bed and we see a picture of his wife Adrian who has passed from cancer four years previously. You get the sense of sadness and the feeling of being lonely that Rocky is feeling. Rocky feels like he's lost everyone that made his life enjoyable around him except for Adrian's brother Paulie.

I liked how we got to see a different side of Rocky for a majority of the film. That of a business man, but also the human side of someone who is considered a celebrity and everywhere he goes people want to get his autograph. It's great to see emotions raw and real coming through Rocky portrayed brilliantly by Sylvester Stalllone. I also enjoy the nod to my home state Pennsylvania through the name of Rocky's opponent Mason "The Line" Dixon and through the clips of the city throughout the film and the ending credits when several are standing on the steps of the Philadelphia Museum of Art doing Rocky poses.

The fight is fantastic and through every sequence of it I always felt myself rooting for Rocky. As the fight carries on the whole crowd and even the announcers are surprised that Rocky is able to last the whole match and his opponent gains respect for him and his boxing style. This movie is calm in violence and language considering other films that are out there. But there are still some bloody scenes that take place during the fight. I highly enjoyed all of the flashback scenes from the previous Rocky films and would have to say this one has to be my absolute favorite.

Rating: 5 out of 5 Liberty Bells.
 
BK, I read an article in Vanity Fair about Brad's obsession to make the WWZ movie, and make it right. The original script was written by someone who wanted to make the standard zombie-hunting-action/horror flick, and Brad vetoed that idea and went outside the box to get this great scriptwriter of meaningful films to bring the story from the book (which Brad apparently loves) right onto the big screen ... and yet it sounds like they made the standard zombie-hunting-action/horror flick, with little connection to the story. Ho-hum.

NB, I was growing up during the Rocky classic times, and I just never got into those films at all. I thought the 2006 film was a dumb idea -- old man Rocky back in the ring? Your review is quite interesting, though. Thanks.
 
inkspot said:
BK, I read an article in Vanity Fair about Brad's obsession to make the WWZ movie, and make it right. The original script was written by someone who wanted to make the standard zombie-hunting-action/horror flick, and Brad vetoed that idea and went outside the box to get this great scriptwriter of meaningful films to bring the story from the book (which Brad apparently loves) right onto the big screen ... and yet it sounds like they made the standard zombie-hunting-action/horror flick, with little connection to the story. Ho-hum.

NB, I was growing up during the Rocky classic times, and I just never got into those films at all. I thought the 2006 film was a dumb idea -- old man Rocky back in the ring? Your review is quite interesting, though. Thanks.
Click to expand...

You're welcome! I know the ending could've been a little different. It would've been cool to see Rocky training a younger boxer just like Mickey trained Rocky. But then again it wouldn't be Rocky if he wasn't fighting at the end of the film. LoL.
 
The Last of the Mohicans (1992)

Summary: Three trappers protect a British Colonel's daughters in the midst of the French and Indian War.

Starring: Daniel Day-Lewis, Eric Schweig, Wes Studi, Russell Means, and Madeleine Stowe.

My Review:

*sigh* What is it about these 90s films that I just don't find appealing? What makes them such "classics", anyway? I had been fighting watching this film because of its R rating. It was okay. I liked the music, and Daniel Day-Lewis was actually decent in this movie. But the people who really stole the show for me was Eric Schweig (Uncas) and Wes Studi (Magua). I really really wish Eric had been given a bigger role in this film, but maybe that was in line with the book. Wes Studi again scared the crap outta me, and he showed why he should have deserved an Oscar nomination for his role in the film. I mean, the man is so stinking underrated it's ridiculous. But I was very sad when Uncas died...mainly because Eric Schweig made the character so attractive. Haha. The film isn't terribly violent until about the last 30 minutes. Then the blood REALLY starts pouring.

Rating: 2.5/5 stars for not really having much of a good plot, and just not being that great in general. Can I get that 2 hours of my life back, please? :rolleyes:
 
good review. I agree with it in general. I did not really like the film. But that one villain was very scary!
 
Title: Dogtooth (2009)

Summary: Any word that comes from beyond their family abode is instantly assigned a new meaning. Hence 'the sea' refers to a large armchair and 'zombies' are little yellow flowers.

My review: Highly recomnmended.

Rating: 5/5
 
I don't know where you even hear about these movies. But thanks for the review.

My husband and I watched on TV the Tom Clancy movie "Sum of All Fears" with Ben Affleck as Jack Ryan, the CIA analyst turned action hero. It was OK if you like those Tom Clancy books. I never read one, but my husband is a fan. On TV there was no cussing, but I imagine if you get this on DVD there is probably some language. It has Morgan Freeman and James Cromwell and is about a Neo-Nazi coalition's attempt to start a nuclear war between Russia and the USA. Political intrigue and a lot of explosions. I guess for what it is, it was OK.

4/5 if you like Tom Clancy and that kind of film.
 
Yellow Rock (2012)

Summary: Five men ride into the eerie town of Yellow Rock, hoping to rescue a family member and his lost boy. The leader, Max Dietrich, hires Mountain Man, Tom Hanner, to guide them into the Black Paw Tribe territory for the search.

Starring: James Russo, Michael Biehn, Lenore Andriel, Michael Spears, Eddie Spears, and Zahn McClarnon.

Rated: R for violence and language (see details on this in my review)

Review:
I originally saw this movie last year right after it came out, and loved it. I was a little leery of this film after seeing "Legend of Hell's Gate: An American Conspiracy" (2011), since Legend was such a disappointment (the only reason I even saw it was because of Michael and Eddie Spears; surprise, surprise, they were only in about 5 minutes of the 2 hour film). "Yellow Rock" was a very pleasant surprise since it was much better than "Legend." Yes, it's rated R, and it has some strong language in it that is repeated frequently (nothing worse than s words mixed in with others, and God's name taken in vain several times). If you compare its level of violence with other R-rated films from mainstream Hollywood, I would call this film more of a PG-13 in terms of violence. There is some blood, but I've honestly seen worse. Even the producers felt like the R rating was rather harsh, but what can you do about the MPAA's lunacy sometimes?

I've seen several independent films starring both white and Native actors, and I have to say that this film is one of the best. The acting is not exactly Oscar material, but it is far better than most acting in films, like, Twilight. The three main leads: Lenore Andriel, Michael Spears, and Eddie Spears, all won awards at various festivals and award shows for Best Actor/Actress and Best Supporting Actor. The film itself won multiple awards at various shows, all of which were deserved.

What makes me love this film despite its flaws is the heart of the story. Lenore, who wrote and produced the film (her first ever Western), has a heart for Native peoples and telling their stories through film. She wanted to see this film made, and she wanted authentic actors who were Native in it. She wanted things to be accurate, and took steps to make sure they were (the Blackpaw tribe is fictional, but based on actual tribes from California). You can see this love and dedication come through in her character, especially as she interacts with Michael Spears' character Broken Wing. Man. Michael's performance in this movie is one of his best, second to his role as the younger Dog Star in "Into the West". I love films that showcase Michael's natural talent as an actor and as a singer/drummer, and this film did both. Eddie Spears is also phenomenal in his role as Angry Wolf, the Blackpaw warrior who can transform himself into a wolf to protect his people.

Overall: this film is an excellent movie for the independent-film fan, but NOT for those who want to avoid violence and/or language. If you're a Native actor fan, or a fan of Native storylines, this is worth watching. Oh, and the twist at the very end is kind of neat too.

My rating: 4.5/5 stars.
 
inkspot said:
I've never even heard of Yellow Rock. Sounds good though. Thanks for the review.
Click to expand...

It's an independent made and distributed film. I'm a fan of independent films if they're decent and if they aren't too vile. F words is where I draw the line on some films, which is why I haven't seen movies like "Skins" (2002).
 
Riddick.

Gratuitous violence, sexual stuff showing female body parts that should never be shown. and otherwise a movie to exploit Vin Diesel character and line the pockets of Hollywood movie people with YOUR hard earned money. This movie has no reason to exist at all, it's only to exploit Diesel's character from the first sort of cool movie Pitch Black. Either that or the producers made this movie because they were trying to get back money they lost from the sequel to Pitch Black, The Chronicles of Riddick, was a bomb. Don't waste your money. Go to the $1 theater if you must watch it.
 
Title: Red Wing
Year: 2013
Rating: 10 out of 10 if you leave before the last 15 minutes...0 out of 10 if you see the last 15 minutes
Summary (spoilers): Wow, this movie looked so great. It's about an orphan boy whom a loving woman raises in a small Texas town. Both the boy and the woman are kind, innocent people who face many difficulties and struggles in life. Many people are cruel to them and yet they don't become bitter or mean themselves. In the last fifteen minutes of the movie the boy confesses his feelings for, well, pretty much the only woman who's been a mother to him. Very disturbing. It was such a good film until the end. It's based on a French novelette, which was kind of an "ah hah" moment.
 
Last edited:
The Hunger Games: Catching Fire-SPOILERS!

The movie opens with Katniss silently sitting on the bank of a lake her father used to take her to. There is no music, no sound, nothing. It's completely silent for the first minute of the film. Gale soon joins her, and we quickly realize just how much the Games have affected Katniss. Not only has it affected her relationship with Gale (more on that in a second), it has changed how she regards things around her. When she shoots at a turkey, she thinks she's shooting Marvel again. Katniss completely loses it, ever remaining on a delicate mental balance for pretty much the remainder of the film (probably pretty true to the book). When I say it's affected her relationship with Gale, it's because it seems as if a lot of the scenes between the two of them are incredibly strained and awkward. Maybe this is the result of some choppily written dialogue (even more on that later), but regardless, their scenes seem to be strained.

I digress. THG is the only film I've seen Jennifer Lawrence in, but there is a reason Lawrence is an Academy Award nominated and winning actress. As one of the reviews on mockingjay.net said, Catching Fire showcases her incredibly diverse talent. Katniss is broken, vulnerable, strong, brave, etc. I think perhaps the best moment for Jennifer in the film, for me personally, was her District 11 speech. This was the first (but not the last time) in the film where I just couldn't keep from crying. The acting was superb in that scene, not just from Jennifer but from Josh Hutcherson. The dialogue was so well written, and the entire scene captured the heart of the books. It's so rare to watch a movie but be able to feel the emotional intensity on screen as if it were your own. The buildup to the execution of the man in District 11: excruciating. You know it's coming (if you've read the book), but it's the trigger that I think makes Katniss choose what she'll do from there on out. Lawrence delivers another exceptional performance throughout the movie. I think she even more perfectly captures Katniss in this film than in the previous one. Not that she didn't, but she proves why she was the perfect choice for the character.

Elizabeth Banks. In the first film, it appears as if Effie has no soul. Effie is just a shallow, vain person who cares about nothing but the latest trends and fashions. Not so in this film. I LOVE Effie in this movie. She is everything from the book and more. My heart just broke when Effie said goodbye to Katniss and Peeta, and I nearly cried when she pulled Katniss' name out of the bowl. The entire reaping scene, I was just thinking how much more I loved Effie in this movie than in the first one. Banks did an incredible job portraying those different facets of Effie, and I think that overall, it made Effie a more likable character.

Josh Hutcherson. I didn't think I could really like the film version of Peeta...but I did in CF. We get to see the many layers of Peeta, the one Collins wrote. I LOVE that we get to see that Peeta in more detail this time! I actually came away being more on Team Peeta than I was before. In the book I'm always sorry for him because he seems to get the short end of the stick when it comes to Katniss, and that was carried over into the film.

Woody Harrelson. Can the man get any more perfect at playing Haymitch? My goodness. Haymitch was even more snarky in this film than previously, but that's completely fitting within his character. And Lenny Kravitz? Well...he did a good job for the minimal amount of time Cinna appeared. I felt slighted that we didn't get to see much of Cinna in this movie, a shame since he dies before Mockingjay (at least, in the books). That was one scene I was dreading the most, but also looking forward to. It's so critical to Katniss' character that it had to happen. I'm glad the filmmakers kept it in.

Now, onto the newest characters to join the club. I'm still kind of out on Sam Claflin as Finnick; I can't decide if he is suitable or not. I'd probably have to see the movie again to really decide if I like him. However, Jena Malone? Her Johanna was SO true to the book! I didn't like that they had her yelling bleeped F words (I feel like the cussing in this film is/was very unnecessary as there's none in the book(s)), but I loved that they showed how much she hated the Capitol too. And the elevator scene? That was probably the best moment for Johanna, not to mention, I died laughing at Katniss' reaction(s). It was priceless, and I'm glad they made that scene better. Oh yeah, and I'm glad they kept in that brief scene of Chaff kissing Katniss; that was a laugh out loud moment, and it was funny to see Katniss caught off guard. And Mags? Who doesn't just fall in love with Mags the second you see her on screen? Even though she didn't say a word, she was Mags. She (Lynn Cohen) was the perfect choice for the character. Sad that she died! As for the others, they were all kinda 'eh' for me. Wasn't really blown away by any of them or underwhelmed. They were just there. I expected to feel some sort of emotion over Wiress' death, but I didn't. I felt like that may have been a miss on the part of Francis Lawrence, but it really wasn't a big deal in the scope of things. And just as a random note: what about the guy playing Thread? Perfectly cast for just about 5 minutes of screen time! Also for honorable mention: I loved Caesar in the first film, played by Stanley Tucci, but this movie, I just found myself irritated by him. However, I will give him props for bringing to life the Caesar from the book; when Katniss becomes the mockingjay, and the interviews start to go downhill, you can see on his face, "Oh, snap". This is something from the book: Caesar sees the spiral and knows he can't do anything to stop it. Oh, and while I'm remembering: what about that moment with the Victors holding hands?! LOVED that it made it into the film!

now, some things I didn't really like that much. I didn't care for the way Katniss/Gale scenes were redone. I felt like they lost their impact, and maybe it's the book purist in me, but I just wasn't happy with the Katniss/Gale scenes in general. There were also some things done that were taken out of their context from the book (ex. Ripper; she's mentioned and seen, but there's no explanation of who she is to Katniss), but I guess overall, there's more context to this film than its predecessor.

In short, Catching Fire outshines The Hunger Games just by one thing: better scripts. The dialogue, while awkwardly executed in several areas, is spot on. Instead of being Francis Lawrence's story, it's Suzanne Collins' story that is seen on the big screen. This is something lacking from the first film, as I have always felt that it was more of Ross' story than what was written. It's refreshing to have a director who clearly cares about the material as much as the fans do, and it assures me that he can do an equally good job on Mockingjay 1 and 2. Unlike some directors who clearly have no understanding, respect, or appreciation for the material they're adapting (like, ahem, a certain Michael Apted), Lawrence demonstrates that he respects the material/fans. Many of the scenes adapted could have been deemed unnecessary, but they remain. What few changes have been made were made probably because of time and streamlining. Truthfully, if they didn't make any changes at all, this film would have taken much longer than 2 1/2 hours. The last few minutes of this movie, before Katniss discovers the truth about D12, contains some of the most beautiful cinematography found in this franchise so far. The montage of Katniss being lifted into the hovercraft: exactly like the book and just as satisfying. The film ends with Katniss learning of the destruction of District 12; she turns to the camera, tears streaming out of her eyes. Then, the final shot: Katniss takes a breath, grits her teeth, and you can see truly she has now decided the Capitol must go. All of the anger, bitterness, hurt, frustration, and emotion Katniss feels toward the Capitol is all summed up in about 10 seconds of her looking solidly at us, the audience. As the credits fade to black, we see the Hunger Games logo of the Mockingjay, which catches fire and becomes the Catching Fire Mockingjay, which then turns into something else entirely (I haven't decided if this is their interpretation of Mockingjay's mockingjay, but someone else is free to give their opinion on that), at the last second or two of the Catching Fire logo transformation, we hear the infamous mockingjay 4 note call, giving the audience a spine chilling feeling of what's to come in films 3 and 4. I had goosebumps as the credits began to roll, knowing it's going to be a full year before we see the start of the war between the rebels and the Capitol.
 
Back
Top