Aravis Kenobi
New member
It might be a reboot, but Abrams has said on multiple occasions it's also a prequel. Must everything I say be disputed by you?
[Look at the line above my post; it HAS the title in it. Obviously.]
Give YOUR Movie review
- Thread starter Mrs Gil-Galad Took
- Start date
It might be a reboot, but Abrams has said on multiple occasions it's also a prequel. Must everything I say be disputed by you?
[Look at the line above my post; it HAS the title in it. Obviously.]
ahyperdude
New member
Movie: "Master and Commander" 2003
Prominent Actors: Russel Crowe and Paul Bettany
Story: During the Napoleonic Wars, a British captain pushes his ship and crew to their limits in pursuit of a formidable French war vessel around South America with tricks and fights along the way.
Positive Elements: I like this story because the authenticness of it! It seemed perfectly historically correct. The fighting seemed VERY realistic, and also the injuries. The language was at a GREAT level! Only one F word and it was enough to believe people at that time would use (once again, VERY authentic) The story wasn't ONLY fighting though, the characters were GREAT and it had humor and a great story-line to it! The music and directing style were phenomenal!
Negative Elements: First off I have to admit, if it wasn't for the battle at the end, I wouldn't have liked it so much. I'm not an action freak, but it needed it for sure! The story at times seemed a little boring because it wasn't very eventful. IT DID have characters and small events along the way to at least keep you interested. Literally, this is as harsh as I can be, I really have nothing else to get on!
Summary: I give this movie a 9-10. I was thinking an 8-10 but after seeing it again and looking back on it, I've gained more respect and love for it! I would DEFINITELY see this movie again, despite the slowness of it. I would DEFINITELY advise that you see it at least once! I can ALMOST guaranty that you'll like it!
Prominent Actors: Russel Crowe and Paul Bettany
Story: During the Napoleonic Wars, a British captain pushes his ship and crew to their limits in pursuit of a formidable French war vessel around South America with tricks and fights along the way.
Positive Elements: I like this story because the authenticness of it! It seemed perfectly historically correct. The fighting seemed VERY realistic, and also the injuries. The language was at a GREAT level! Only one F word and it was enough to believe people at that time would use (once again, VERY authentic
) The story wasn't ONLY fighting though, the characters were GREAT and it had humor and a great story-line to it! The music and directing style were phenomenal!Negative Elements: First off I have to admit, if it wasn't for the battle at the end, I wouldn't have liked it so much. I'm not an action freak, but it needed it for sure! The story at times seemed a little boring because it wasn't very eventful. IT DID have characters and small events along the way to at least keep you interested. Literally, this is as harsh as I can be, I really have nothing else to get on!
Summary: I give this movie a 9-10. I was thinking an 8-10 but after seeing it again and looking back on it, I've gained more respect and love for it! I would DEFINITELY see this movie again, despite the slowness of it. I would DEFINITELY advise that you see it at least once! I can ALMOST guaranty that you'll like it!
Aravis Kenobi
New member
True Grit (2010); Rated PG-13 for violence and language
This movie's plot is the same as the 1969 version, so no need in retyping.
Review: 8.5/10
Loves: This movie has a simple, repetitive, but honest soundtrack. If anyone has seen either version, it can be difficult to imagine a soundtrack composed mainly of hymns being the soundtrack to such a dark and sometimes violent movie. I love its simplicity, and it has some of the best hymn arrangements I've heard of hymns like "Leaning on the Everlasting Arms" and "What a Friend we Have in Jesus". Another love: Hailee Steinfeld. For such a young actress, she shows a maturity and poise on the big screen that is hard to come by even for adults. She deserved every inch of her Oscar nomination for this movie [she lost to Melissa Leo ], and I look forward to seeing her in future projects.
Likes: This movie is more entertaining than its predecessor, and has more clever dialogue [even though both versions sport similar dialogue, I found this version to sound more authentic to its time period].
Dislikes: I dislike the sudden and brutal violence. Language, I can handle. Heck, the original had language. Not only is the violence sudden AND brutal, it's bloody. The camera doesn't shy away from hangings, and we see a man simultaneously stabbed and fingers severed [the camera shows the severed fingers on the table along with blood], while the man who stabbed him is shot in the head, resulting in blood going pretty much everywhere. Later in the movie, as we all know, Mattie falls into a rattlesnake pit and is bitten. The creepiest aspect of this is the fact that those snakes take refuge in a corpse, a corpse that Mattie disturbs to retrieve a knife from [her leg is entangled and she can't get it free]. Her horse is later shot by Cogburn since Cogburn ran Little Blackie to death in an effort to save Mattie from the snake bite.
Other comments: For a movie that is so violent [and produced/written/directed by the Coen brothers], the fact that Christianity has some sort of foundation is surprising. John Wayne made a much better Cogburn than Jeff Bridges, even though both were nominated for a Best Actor Oscar for their respective nominations [Wayne won; Bridges lost to Colin Firth for "the King's Speech"]. Glen Campbell was thankfully NO where near this movie, and I liked Matt Damon's take on the character. Barry Pepper [Lucky Ned Pepper; yes they have the same last name] resembled Robert Duvall in the way he spoke; some of their lines sounded identical in presentation. Josh Brolin [Tom Chaney] presented tom Chaney in an unique way. I never can decide if Chaney was not all there, just flat out crazy, or just completely unconscious of right and wrong. All in all, the movie was well written and the acting superb. For being a remake, anyway.
This movie's plot is the same as the 1969 version, so no need in retyping.
Review: 8.5/10
Loves: This movie has a simple, repetitive, but honest soundtrack. If anyone has seen either version, it can be difficult to imagine a soundtrack composed mainly of hymns being the soundtrack to such a dark and sometimes violent movie. I love its simplicity, and it has some of the best hymn arrangements I've heard of hymns like "Leaning on the Everlasting Arms" and "What a Friend we Have in Jesus". Another love: Hailee Steinfeld. For such a young actress, she shows a maturity and poise on the big screen that is hard to come by even for adults. She deserved every inch of her Oscar nomination for this movie [she lost to Melissa Leo
], and I look forward to seeing her in future projects. Likes: This movie is more entertaining than its predecessor, and has more clever dialogue [even though both versions sport similar dialogue, I found this version to sound more authentic to its time period].
Dislikes: I dislike the sudden and brutal violence. Language, I can handle. Heck, the original had language. Not only is the violence sudden AND brutal, it's bloody. The camera doesn't shy away from hangings, and we see a man simultaneously stabbed and fingers severed [the camera shows the severed fingers on the table along with blood], while the man who stabbed him is shot in the head, resulting in blood going pretty much everywhere. Later in the movie, as we all know, Mattie falls into a rattlesnake pit and is bitten. The creepiest aspect of this is the fact that those snakes take refuge in a corpse, a corpse that Mattie disturbs to retrieve a knife from [her leg is entangled and she can't get it free]. Her horse is later shot by Cogburn since Cogburn ran Little Blackie to death in an effort to save Mattie from the snake bite.
Other comments: For a movie that is so violent [and produced/written/directed by the Coen brothers], the fact that Christianity has some sort of foundation is surprising. John Wayne made a much better Cogburn than Jeff Bridges, even though both were nominated for a Best Actor Oscar for their respective nominations [Wayne won; Bridges lost to Colin Firth for "the King's Speech"]. Glen Campbell was thankfully NO where near this movie, and I liked Matt Damon's take on the character. Barry Pepper [Lucky Ned Pepper; yes they have the same last name] resembled Robert Duvall in the way he spoke; some of their lines sounded identical in presentation. Josh Brolin [Tom Chaney] presented tom Chaney in an unique way. I never can decide if Chaney was not all there, just flat out crazy, or just completely unconscious of right and wrong. All in all, the movie was well written and the acting superb. For being a remake, anyway.
Aravis Kenobi
New member
The Incredible Hulk (2008)
[Yay, double post!] Just for clarification, since there have been 2 Hulk movies released in a 5 year time period, this version stars William Hurt, Edward Norton, and Liv Tyler.
Review: a whopping 9/10. Whew. I felt like I was on an adrenaline rush with this movie! I haven't seen the 2003 version, so I don't have any comparison. But this version; wow. Granted, there was some sexual content [surprisingly very little] and some language [relatively minimal], but it was a great movie otherwise. This was one Marvel movie that I really enjoyed watching, while some of the others are almost too idiotic to take seriously. I thought Edward Norton was great as the Hulk, and it was cool to see Liv Tyler in a role that wasn't foul-mouthed or too sex-centered. However, I did have just one teensy complaint: no movie after the credits!!!! The end scene between General Ross and Tony Stark should've been placed after the credits instead of before. But other than that, great movie!
[Yay, double post!
] Just for clarification, since there have been 2 Hulk movies released in a 5 year time period, this version stars William Hurt, Edward Norton, and Liv Tyler. Review: a whopping 9/10. Whew. I felt like I was on an adrenaline rush with this movie! I haven't seen the 2003 version, so I don't have any comparison. But this version; wow. Granted, there was some sexual content [surprisingly very little] and some language [relatively minimal], but it was a great movie otherwise. This was one Marvel movie that I really enjoyed watching, while some of the others are almost too idiotic to take seriously. I thought Edward Norton was great as the Hulk, and it was cool to see Liv Tyler in a role that wasn't foul-mouthed or too sex-centered. However, I did have just one teensy complaint: no movie after the credits!!!! The end scene between General Ross and Tony Stark should've been placed after the credits instead of before. But other than that, great movie!
Aravis Kenobi
New member
Toy Story 3 (2010)
Oookay...clearly I'm the only one who cares to post in this thread.
7.5/10
Toy Story 3 had some great potential. It has a wonderful message about growing up and letting go, but never forgetting about your childhood and the magic that it held. I can certainly relate to the story of Andy having to grow up and leave home for college, uncertain of the future, but always able to look back on his times with Woody and the gang. The end almost never fails to make me tear up. However, the movie is tainted for me. it's tainted in that the sexual innuendo and connotations are present. This causes the movie I think to wander into the PG area, and I have to wonder how it got away with a G. Is sexual innuendo and the like accepted now in G-rated movies made for kids? Or were they just trying to stay in the vein of the first two movies? Ken, for me, is one area in which this movie pushed an agenda that isn't family-friendly [kudos to you if you know exactly what I'm talking about]. To be honest, the plot with Lotso is dark and rather intense for a kids movie. I'm sure they were trying to go places they hadn't gone with the previous 2 movies, but to me, they kind of crossed the line in that it was marketed as G, but there are things that make it a worse rating.
and I like the first two movies so much better. They aren't as depressing to watch.
Oookay...clearly I'm the only one who cares to post in this thread.
7.5/10
Toy Story 3 had some great potential. It has a wonderful message about growing up and letting go, but never forgetting about your childhood and the magic that it held. I can certainly relate to the story of Andy having to grow up and leave home for college, uncertain of the future, but always able to look back on his times with Woody and the gang. The end almost never fails to make me tear up. However, the movie is tainted for me. it's tainted in that the sexual innuendo and connotations are present. This causes the movie I think to wander into the PG area, and I have to wonder how it got away with a G. Is sexual innuendo and the like accepted now in G-rated movies made for kids? Or were they just trying to stay in the vein of the first two movies? Ken, for me, is one area in which this movie pushed an agenda that isn't family-friendly [kudos to you if you know exactly what I'm talking about]. To be honest, the plot with Lotso is dark and rather intense for a kids movie. I'm sure they were trying to go places they hadn't gone with the previous 2 movies, but to me, they kind of crossed the line in that it was marketed as G, but there are things that make it a worse rating.
and I like the first two movies so much better. They aren't as depressing to watch.
ahyperdude
New member
*psst, I don't mind you triple posting
* LOL Don't worry AK, I've been reading your reviews . I write a review every time I watch a movie, so you probably noticed I don't watch movies very often . ANYWAY I'd like to make some comments on your Toy Story 3 review
LOL at the time, I didn't get most of the innuendo jokes in this movie. They went RIGHT over my head. I was 12 at the time, and most kids under 10 wouldn't get these at all. I DO agree it was unnecessary though. Pixar has been making some wrong turns and has starting to do Dreamworks thing (adding innuendo into kids movies).
My point is, the stuff they said was minor and it would go over the typical "G rated" audience's head. THATS probably why it was rated G.
If you read pluggedin's review, there really isn't much in this movie:
http://www.pluggedin.com/videos/2010/q4/toystory3.aspx
Coming from a kid who's seen a 4 year old watch LOTR, my gut tells me this wouldn't scare kids. The part with the trash compactor WAS intense, and I can see it would scare kids for a moment, until it ended, and they would be fine after that.
I think this movie DEFINITELY IS on the border of G-PG.
I just wanted to share my thoughts to anyone spectating this review.
Aravis Kenobi
New member
Well, I do agree that most of the stuff would go over kids' heads, but the fact of the matter is: it's still there, and it bothers ME as a 20 year old when I'm watching a supposedly "G-rated" movie, and it's got some trash in it I don't appreciate. The same thing happened with Cars 2; I've never seen a kids' movie so full of hogwash and garbage in my life, though I'm sure a lot of it went over their heads. Apparently they insert this stuff for the parents and sitters watching the movies. They need to stay away from it and get back to movies with messages like Up.
ahyperdude
New member
I agree there! Like I said, they are turning into Dreamworks. My parents didn't let me watch Dreamwork's movies until I was like 11. I don't want Pixar to start turning into Disney or Dreamwords more than they already have. THEY NEED TO STAY INNOCENT!
Do you agree that "Brave" looks like a Disney/Dreamworks film, rather than Pixar? I still have hopes for it, but its not looking too good.
Aravis Kenobi
New member
Eh, I don't know. The trailer doesn't make me want to see it in theaters....oh, and by the way, you can't say "Brave", because the word "Brave" is apparently copyright to the Atlanta Braves.
I kid you not: the Atlanta Braves were/are crying foul over the movie title, saying that it "infringes on their team's name."
I kid you not: the Atlanta Braves were/are crying foul over the movie title, saying that it "infringes on their team's name."
ahyperdude
New member
Eh, I don't know. The trailer doesn't make me want to see it in theaters....oh, and by the way, you can't say "Brave", because the word "Brave" is apparently copyright to the Atlanta Braves.
I kid you not: the Atlanta Braves were/are crying foul over the movie title, saying that it "infringes on their team's name."
That is SO stupid ><
NO ONE EVEN CARES (or knows about) The Atlanta Braves LOL (not meaning that 100% literally)
Aravis Kenobi
New member
Alias Jesse James (1959)
Just for the record, this movie stars Bob Hope and Rhonda Fleming, with a cameo by (hold onto your seat!):
Roy Rogers
Gail Davis [Annie Oakley]
Ward Bond
James Arness [Matt Dillon]
Fess Parker [Davy Crockett]
Bing Crosby
Hugh O'Brian [Wyatt Earp]
Jay Silverheels [Tonto]
And of course Trigger, though I never did see him so I don't know for sure if he was in it or not [Trigger is Roy Rogers' horse].
I'm presuming that most of these such as Gail Davis and Hugh O'Brian had cameos in the roles they made famous....
Review: 9/10
This is a typical screwball comedy from the 1950s, and Bob Hope does NOT disappoint. I love movies like this, that are just so silly you can't help but love them. There were such goofy jokes that it was hard not to laugh out loud at them. The one thing I kind of disliked in this movie, and I'm nitpicking, but the attitude of crime directed towards the [Jesse] James gang/family. Their crimes and felonies were treated lightly, and treated as if it was something comical. This was something I don't think I would've done had it been me, because the James gang was a bunch of thieves and criminals. But, the movie itself was enjoyable, and it is so nice to sit and enjoy a movie and be able to laugh without feeling guilty about what's being said or joked about. Definitely worth seeing if you're into old comedies!
Just for the record, this movie stars Bob Hope and Rhonda Fleming, with a cameo by (hold onto your seat!):
Roy Rogers
Gail Davis [Annie Oakley]
Ward Bond
James Arness [Matt Dillon]
Fess Parker [Davy Crockett]
Bing Crosby
Hugh O'Brian [Wyatt Earp]
Jay Silverheels [Tonto]
And of course Trigger, though I never did see him so I don't know for sure if he was in it or not [Trigger is Roy Rogers' horse].
I'm presuming that most of these such as Gail Davis and Hugh O'Brian had cameos in the roles they made famous....
Review: 9/10
This is a typical screwball comedy from the 1950s, and Bob Hope does NOT disappoint. I love movies like this, that are just so silly you can't help but love them. There were such goofy jokes that it was hard not to laugh out loud at them. The one thing I kind of disliked in this movie, and I'm nitpicking, but the attitude of crime directed towards the [Jesse] James gang/family. Their crimes and felonies were treated lightly, and treated as if it was something comical. This was something I don't think I would've done had it been me, because the James gang was a bunch of thieves and criminals. But, the movie itself was enjoyable, and it is so nice to sit and enjoy a movie and be able to laugh without feeling guilty about what's being said or joked about. Definitely worth seeing if you're into old comedies!
ahyperdude
New member
Movie: "Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time" 2010
Prominent Actors: Jake Gyllenhaal and Gemma Arterton
Story: The story starts off with a king. (He has two sons). One day a kid runs in front of a horse, and starts getting beaten for it. Dastan (as a kid) steps forward and helps the kid run away. But eventually they both get caught. The king, though, see's potential in Dastan and takes him in as his son.
Dastan grows up in his fathers reign, and when the movie REALLY picks up, is with Dastan and his brothers launching an attack on a city, that they believed to be selling weapons to their enemy. They capture the city, and it isn't until later that they figure out, that their brother HIRED someone to tell them this and that they unjustly attacked the city.
After Dastans father is poisoned, everyone believed Dastan did it, although he didn't, so he flew away with the princess (and the dagger) so he wouldn't be killed for murder.
As he journeys with the princes he finds out that the knife has powers, that if you press the button in the pommel, it makes everything go back in time. The sand inside keeps it working.
Positive Elements: The directing style of this movie was perfect! All the action scenes were slow filmed, so it gave it the action movie feel and kept you tense. The music was phenomenal, perfect for the setting! The base of the storyline was great.
Negative Elements: Although the action scenes were filmed great, they still had a fakeness to them, for example, you could tell people weren't REALLY getting stabbed, and there was no blood. (mainly in the beginning, although it improved as it went on). Although the base of the storyline was great, it still had LOTS of plot holes. The acting was also not the greatest.
Summary: This was the second time watching this movie, and I have to say, I WOULD watch it again! The second time was so much better because I got so much more! It has an immense storyline! I would DEFINITELY tell you to see this if you like action films. Although it was slow and almost fake in the beginning, the story/acting/action get MUCH better as the movie goes on!
My rating would be 7-10
Prominent Actors: Jake Gyllenhaal and Gemma Arterton
Story: The story starts off with a king. (He has two sons). One day a kid runs in front of a horse, and starts getting beaten for it. Dastan (as a kid) steps forward and helps the kid run away. But eventually they both get caught. The king, though, see's potential in Dastan and takes him in as his son.
Dastan grows up in his fathers reign, and when the movie REALLY picks up, is with Dastan and his brothers launching an attack on a city, that they believed to be selling weapons to their enemy. They capture the city, and it isn't until later that they figure out, that their brother HIRED someone to tell them this and that they unjustly attacked the city.
After Dastans father is poisoned, everyone believed Dastan did it, although he didn't, so he flew away with the princess (and the dagger) so he wouldn't be killed for murder.
As he journeys with the princes he finds out that the knife has powers, that if you press the button in the pommel, it makes everything go back in time. The sand inside keeps it working.
Positive Elements: The directing style of this movie was perfect! All the action scenes were slow filmed, so it gave it the action movie feel and kept you tense. The music was phenomenal, perfect for the setting! The base of the storyline was great.
Negative Elements: Although the action scenes were filmed great, they still had a fakeness to them, for example, you could tell people weren't REALLY getting stabbed, and there was no blood. (mainly in the beginning, although it improved as it went on). Although the base of the storyline was great, it still had LOTS of plot holes. The acting was also not the greatest.
Summary: This was the second time watching this movie, and I have to say, I WOULD watch it again! The second time was so much better because I got so much more! It has an immense storyline! I would DEFINITELY tell you to see this if you like action films. Although it was slow and almost fake in the beginning, the story/acting/action get MUCH better as the movie goes on!
My rating would be 7-10
Transformers: Dark of The Moon
Rating: 3/10 for special effects.
Review:
Shia Labeouf's character screams like a girl. 'nough said.
Rating: 3/10 for special effects.
Review:
Shia Labeouf's character screams like a girl. 'nough said.
Aravis Kenobi
New member
Superman Returns (2006)
8/10. I am NOT a comic book fan. I once promised myself I'd never watch another comic book movie after seeing Fantastic Four and its sequel. But so far, I've seen most every Marvel movie that has been made, and I've enjoyed most or all of them I've seen. So, now I've ventured into the DC comic arena with Superman Returns starring brandon Routh, Kevin Spacey, and Kate Bosworth. I'm torn on this movie. I can honestly say I wasn't biased going into the movie because I've never seen any previous Superman versions. Brandon Routh was decent for the material he was handed. But I had a hard time believing that Lois Lane [Bosworth] was the same Lois Lane from versions in the 70s, etc. I was kind of lost on the movie in this regard, how these characters were in the modern world, yet had never changed. For anyone else who's seen this movie, pretty sure that you guys can understand.
The movie was entertaining, and I was shocked, SHOCKED, at the lack of language and overt sexual content. It was PG-13, but felt more like PG with the exception of Bosworth's character being thrown around, beaten, hit, etc.
8/10. I am NOT a comic book fan. I once promised myself I'd never watch another comic book movie after seeing Fantastic Four and its sequel. But so far, I've seen most every Marvel movie that has been made, and I've enjoyed most or all of them I've seen. So, now I've ventured into the DC comic arena with Superman Returns starring brandon Routh, Kevin Spacey, and Kate Bosworth. I'm torn on this movie. I can honestly say I wasn't biased going into the movie because I've never seen any previous Superman versions. Brandon Routh was decent for the material he was handed. But I had a hard time believing that Lois Lane [Bosworth] was the same Lois Lane from versions in the 70s, etc. I was kind of lost on the movie in this regard, how these characters were in the modern world, yet had never changed. For anyone else who's seen this movie, pretty sure that you guys can understand.
The movie was entertaining, and I was shocked, SHOCKED, at the lack of language and overt sexual content. It was PG-13, but felt more like PG with the exception of Bosworth's character being thrown around, beaten, hit, etc.
Faleel
New member
Only Superman The Movie came out in the 70's, the other movies came out in the 80's
Aravis Kenobi
New member
Seriously?
YES I KNOW THAT! I was speaking in general terms, hence the ETC at the end of my sentence! Good grief.
ahyperdude
New member
Movie: "Cinderella Man" 2005
Prominent Actors: Russell Crowe and Renée Zellweger
Story: Jim Braddock (Russel Crowe) is a boxer. His career starts going down hill and he finally gets cut off from boxing, leaving his already poor family even poorer. At this point they are in the middle of the great depression, and Jim has an even harder time finding a job.
He finally has to beg for money to keep his kids and at this point is desperate for money. His manager later comes to his apartment and asks him if he'd like to have just one more boxing match. After consideration Jim decides to accept because if he won it would mean money for his family, although the chances of winning are very small.
Jim wins the boxing match and gets the money, slowly he becomes more and more famous, driven by his desperation for money to provide for his family.
Positive Elements: The directing style of this movie was phenomenal, you get to see things from Jim's view as a boxer, and yet the scenes with groups talking are somehow amazingly positioned. The acting was AMAZING, no fakeness at all. The characters were great. Through all the boxing scenes you feel either like you're there in the rink or watching from Jim's view, it keeps you insanely intense.
Negative Elements: The language level of this movie is REALLY high. They use God's name in vain about 10-30 times with A,S, and B words thrown in too. In that business and with that atmosphere its being realistic, and it gave the movie yet more realisticness.
Summary: If you like action you will LOVE this movie, it went at a PERFECT tempo and had so much to the storyline. Although the boxing and language is intense, I think anyone would enjoy this movie. I would definitely see it again, and I advise you to see it if you aready haven't!
9-10
Prominent Actors: Russell Crowe and Renée Zellweger
Story: Jim Braddock (Russel Crowe) is a boxer. His career starts going down hill and he finally gets cut off from boxing, leaving his already poor family even poorer. At this point they are in the middle of the great depression, and Jim has an even harder time finding a job.
He finally has to beg for money to keep his kids and at this point is desperate for money. His manager later comes to his apartment and asks him if he'd like to have just one more boxing match. After consideration Jim decides to accept because if he won it would mean money for his family, although the chances of winning are very small.
Jim wins the boxing match and gets the money, slowly he becomes more and more famous, driven by his desperation for money to provide for his family.
Positive Elements: The directing style of this movie was phenomenal, you get to see things from Jim's view as a boxer, and yet the scenes with groups talking are somehow amazingly positioned. The acting was AMAZING, no fakeness at all. The characters were great. Through all the boxing scenes you feel either like you're there in the rink or watching from Jim's view, it keeps you insanely intense.
Negative Elements: The language level of this movie is REALLY high. They use God's name in vain about 10-30 times with A,S, and B words thrown in too. In that business and with that atmosphere its being realistic, and it gave the movie yet more realisticness.
Summary: If you like action you will LOVE this movie, it went at a PERFECT tempo and had so much to the storyline. Although the boxing and language is intense, I think anyone would enjoy this movie. I would definitely see it again, and I advise you to see it if you aready haven't!
9-10
ahyperdude
New member
Movie: "Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides" 2011
Prominent Actors: Johnny Depp and Penélope Cruz
Story: Jack hears a rumor of the so called "Fountain of Youth" you follow Jack, as well as Blackbeard, his daughter, the French, and England to find the "Fountain of Youth".
Positive Elements: The Second half of this movie was great! It had the typical Pirates of the Caribbean directing style, the phenomenal Pirates music (by Hans Zimmer) with new themes added, the acting was fairly good (especially without Orlando Bloom and Keira Knightley). The storyline had a good base. The character development of the original characters was fairly minor, but there was huge number of noobies that had amazing characters. The special effects/animation was done well too (I didn't feel like I was looking at something that wasn't really there, except for one or two times). It had some not-to-cheesy humor and also, had a tad of religion incorporated, which I liked.
Negative Elements: The first point I would like to bring up is that it DID have a good base storyline but it seemed like it took half the movie to get to the point, which was boring, and had the feel of them trying to make it like the original. I have to agree with some of the critics that Jack seemed bored at some points in the first half. I thought a couple of things were cheesy like, for example, Black Beard could control everything on his ship with the right movement of his sword, he moved various objects as: ropes, sails, the boat etc. and it seemed INSANELY unrealistic. The language was kept low, but there were uncountable sexual comments/actions (nothing too serious but it was close). One more complaint would be that at the beginning, all the English seemed to be laughing while they were acting. They didn't act like one would REALLY act back then and had an unrealistic humor about them.
Summary: Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides was a well made movie. At some parts it seemed there was a lack of storyline and that it was just being made for the money, but later once it got into the main part of the movie, I forgot about the rough beginning and enjoyed it. It had humor, action, and some drama to it that made it very likeable!
Although I didn't love this movie, and it was my least favorite out of this series, I feel it deserves a 7-10. (I would definitely see it again, although if you miss out on it, its no huge deal)
Prominent Actors: Johnny Depp and Penélope Cruz
Story: Jack hears a rumor of the so called "Fountain of Youth" you follow Jack, as well as Blackbeard, his daughter, the French, and England to find the "Fountain of Youth".
Positive Elements: The Second half of this movie was great! It had the typical Pirates of the Caribbean directing style, the phenomenal Pirates music (by Hans Zimmer) with new themes added, the acting was fairly good (especially without Orlando Bloom and Keira Knightley). The storyline had a good base. The character development of the original characters was fairly minor, but there was huge number of noobies that had amazing characters. The special effects/animation was done well too (I didn't feel like I was looking at something that wasn't really there, except for one or two times). It had some not-to-cheesy humor and also, had a tad of religion incorporated, which I liked.
Negative Elements: The first point I would like to bring up is that it DID have a good base storyline but it seemed like it took half the movie to get to the point, which was boring, and had the feel of them trying to make it like the original. I have to agree with some of the critics that Jack seemed bored at some points in the first half. I thought a couple of things were cheesy like, for example, Black Beard could control everything on his ship with the right movement of his sword, he moved various objects as: ropes, sails, the boat etc. and it seemed INSANELY unrealistic. The language was kept low, but there were uncountable sexual comments/actions (nothing too serious but it was close). One more complaint would be that at the beginning, all the English seemed to be laughing while they were acting. They didn't act like one would REALLY act back then and had an unrealistic humor about them.
Summary: Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides was a well made movie. At some parts it seemed there was a lack of storyline and that it was just being made for the money, but later once it got into the main part of the movie, I forgot about the rough beginning and enjoyed it. It had humor, action, and some drama to it that made it very likeable!
Although I didn't love this movie, and it was my least favorite out of this series, I feel it deserves a 7-10. (I would definitely see it again, although if you miss out on it, its no huge deal)