Action/Adventure
I think this movie is a great movie i would remind it to everyone to watch it because it is a great movie. This movie has action love and a bit of bullying. I would give this movie 4 and a half out of 5 because this sort of movie i like.
At the start of this film the kid and his mum move to china because his mum dosn't have enough money to afford the house they used to live in. They only had enough money to afford the house in china. so when they moved to china the kid didn't like it much so he really really wanted to go home. In his class were some bullies that started to bully him. So he wanted to learn kung fu so he could have some self defence.
My favourite bit of the film would be at the end where he is in lots of fights owned them. When he was fighting there was all this action music playing in the background it sounded awsome.
My other favourite bit in the film was when kid was getting attacked and then his kung fu teacher jumped in and owned them all.
All the characters were good because they all had a good part in the movie and i think they all enjoyed acting for this film.
My favourite character was the kid because he had the best part to act out.I would of liked to be him because he gets to do all this action stuff.
This film is the best film i have ever seen because i really enjoy action movies. So i would reccomend this movie to all kids and adults that like action and fighting films. If i could watch this movie again i would love to
Arhtur Dent is a normal earthling who doesn’t know that his best friend, Ford Prefect is not from planet Earth. Fortunately for Arthur, having an alien friend comes in handy when Vogons destroy planet Earth. Ford repays an old debt to Arthur by saving him and hitchhiking with the Vogons. They are soon found and thrown into space but are luckily improbably found by Arthur’s old love intrest Trisha McMillan and Zaphod (president of the galaxy). Zaphod is being chased for stealing a brand new ship, which adds to the problem.
Arthur is dragged into an action packed adventure which takes him around the galaxy in search of finding planet Magrathea and the answer to the ultimate question. On this journey he meets new friends such as Marvin (a depressed robot), and many problems along the way.
I think this movie is very confusing and really hard to follow. There is a lot of extremely random parts such as whales in the sky that just confuse me.
It is an adventure comedy movie with quite a lot of special effects. However most of the effects look fake. The Vogons look convincing, however when they go through the improbability drive and turn in to flowers and a ball of string it is not believable.
The message of the movie is friendship as the protagonists work together to find the answer to the ultimate question. There is also another message to never give up on your dreams and not to waste your life like Zaphod does as he follows his dream of finding the ultimate question.
I would rate this movie two out of five stars as it is far too confusing. I would recommend it for people twelve years and older as i struggled to understand and I am a teen.
The characters on the other hand were not too bad. They were played well especially Zaphod I thought was funny.
Overall i wouldn’t waste your time and money on this horrible movie.
In 2005 Matt Bucknor,(Elijah Wood)an aspiring reporter, gets kicked out of Harvard when drugs are found in his room that are his roommates.
This leads him to visit his sister in England.
When he is in England he meets his sisters', husbands' brother Pete (charlie Dunham).
He goes to a soccer match with him, it turns out that Pete is the leader of GSE, a football gang for West Ham United.
Matt ends up staying in England and joins GSE. He founds out that the only thing that the members of GSE hate are cops and reporters.
Matt keeps the reporter thing secret, but getting in fight after fight he begins to wonder if this the life he really wanted.
The theme of lifes crossroads is perfectly subtle. When Matt wonders what happened to him, before he was an aspirig reporter, now he is a college dropout who is the most feared men in London.
Standout roles by Elijah Wood and Charlie Dunham give an excellent foundation. Along with Lexi Alexander as director the movie is a standout.
Green Street Hooligans is Rated MA 15+ and is probably not suited for anyone under 15, unless they are very mature or with parental guidance. The movie is flooded with violence, but you really have to reach inside yourself to grasp the the message of the movie.
Inception
(Spoiler Alert)
Okay, if you have seen Inception you probably have a few theories about the ending (or for that matter, the entire plot). From what I've read online, the major debate is whether or not Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio) was dreaming at the end of the movie. He spins the top (which supposedly will not topple if he's dreaming) but the camera cuts away before you know what happens. Most opinions I've come across say he was dreaming. Here are their main reasons...
1). His kids never age.
2). You can't get out of Limbo.
3). His subconscious projections (the train, his kids, and Mal) are the only ones that infiltrate the dreams. The rest of the team brings in none of their own mental baggage. This suggests it is always inside of Cobbs mind and no one else.
4). Once the "kicks" set in, the line was cut and Cobb would have been trapped in Limbo. Even if he got out of Limbo and rode the kicks back up some other way, his avatar from the 1st dream would have drowned in the river.
Now, let me say this. I do not think there is a REAL answer. That's the genius of what Christopher Nolan is doing. It's supposed to keep you thinking, questioning, etc.. He's planted the same idea in our minds that Cobb placed in Mal's... that none of this story may be real.
However, I do believe some of the logic used to "prove" he was dreaming is flawed. In the same way faith is not proved or disproved by evidence, neither is the faith in Cobb's reality so easily explained away. It is obvious that faith plays a large role in the overall framework Nolan is expressing, for example:
a). Saito offers Cobb the ability to go home (to his kids in America) if he can carry out Inception. Cobb says he needs a guarantee from Saito that he can deliver on the promise. Saito asks Cobb if he'd rather grow to be an old man alone and filled with regret, than to take a leap of faith.
b). Cobb asks Mal to take a leap of faith when they are in Limbo, by putting their heads on the train tracks and trusting they'd wake up together.
c). Mal asks Cobb to take a leap of faith out of the window (to kill themselves again) so that they could wake back up (or so Mal believed) in the "real world" (Limbo). She jumps, he does not.
d). Saito goes to Limbo when he dies in the 3rd dream level. Cobb finds him there and they both remember their words (finishing each others' sentences) that they would go back and become young men again (not old and filled with regret) by taking a "leap of faith" that their world (Limbo) was not real. It then shows Saito reach for a gun, as if they killed each other to wake back up.
Even here there is huuuuuuuuge potential for philosophical debate. Was Saito a projection of Cobb's subconscious urging him to live by faith and not live in regret for not doing so? Was Mal's suicide a projection of Cobb's regret of not taking leaps of faith and therefore a projection of his regret? Anyway, that's another discussion.
I'll now address the "evidence" he was dreaming.
1). His kids do not appear to age. This is legitimate. However, the movie never tells how long Cobb has been running from the authorities. That would be critical information. Let's just say he was gone 9 months? Would his kids be noticeably older? Eh... hard to say. And also, Nolan isn't getting bogged down in the specifics of the ages of the children so much as he is stressing the last memory Cobb has of them. This movie is based in a dream mentality. That changes the tone and emphasis for everything.
2). Can you get out of Limbo? I've read reviews saying that there is no way out, and when he put his head on that train track that he just messed himself up even worse, putting himself into a deeper stage (i.e. non-existence, permanent Limbo or Purgatory).
What?
First of all... who is the best source of information for how the physics of Limbo would work? Let's see. This is a film (not actual reality) so we must get our physics from... um... oh yeah... THE FILM! Cobb is the only one that we encounter from the movie who has been to Limbo (until Saito eventually goes later). He is our only source. Cobb never says you can't get out of Limbo in general. He just says if you're heavily sedated and die in the deam, you will go to Limbo instead of waking up. And let's not forget. If this is Cobb has already escaped Limbo once already (according to the plot given).
Granted, this gets confusing. But it only suggests you are stuck in Limbo because of your body being sedated. If you're unable to wake up (due to the sedative) you are therefore stuck in Limbo. And if you're stuck in Limbo for ANY amount of time while you're sedated, that amount of time is compounded. For example: You die in a dream, you can't wake up, you go to Limbo, your body is sedated for 10 hours, you experience decades of time passing in Limbo waiting for your body to snap out of the sedative, your brain is so messed up you can't get back because you've lost sense of reality.
3). While it is quite suspicious that Cobb's subconscious projections are the only ones wreaking havoc and sabotaging mission, again... we must go back to our ONLY source for how the physics of dream sharing works... THE FILM! Cobb is the source of this information. He says that the architect builds the dream and the dreamer populates the dream with his/her subconscious. This formula alone would suggest it is always Cobb who is the dreamer since Mal/the train/his kids end up messing with all his dreams. However, two things are important to remember.
First, Ariadne asks why it is important the architect does not divulge the details of the dream structure and Cobb says (paraphrasing) "So that none of the team members' sub-consciousnesses would bring in anything dangerous."(The movie hasn't been out long enough to get all the quotes exact, but I've seen it twice and I was listening for that discussion). Ariadne immediately asks him if he's referring to what Mal has done in his dreams and if that is why he does not design his own dreams. While Cobb is obviously worried about his own subconscious, he explains the situation in a way that suggests others could potentially bring in other mental baggage as well.
Secondly (and just in-case you think the first explanation can be explained away as Cobb just lying to Ariadne), it is important to remember that the team is involved in SHARED dreaming. If it were only two people (the architect and the dreamer) then it would be feasible to argue that the dreamer is the only one who populates the dream with his/her subconscious (and it appears that the film maintains that this is mostly what is going on) but Cobb and Mal were sharing dreams and when they went to Limbo they were BOTH building an entire world down there (as Cobb says multiple times). There seems to be a way of creating/discovering regardless of who the dreamer is. Everyone who is sharing the dream has a way of bringing something to it.
4). After the kicks started coming, the line was cut? After Fischer is shot, Cobb seems to concede that the mission has failed (since Fischer's mind was now in Limbo), but Ariadne convinces him (very quickly) that Fischer can be given a "kick" from within Limbo to wake him up inside the 3rd dream. This should serve as instant rebuttle to all who say it's impossible to get out of Limbo. And while Fischer did get kicked out from Limbo and had to ride the rest of the kicks up thru the rest of the dreams, this is evidently not the only way to get out of Limbo since Cobb and Mal wake up instantly after the train track incident. There were no other kicks required.
While these points do not prove that Cobb was finally awake in the real world by the end of the film, it does show that the plot as was presented in to film was a plausible one. I think getting tied up on the physics of dreaming misses the point entirely. THIS IS A MOVIE. The rules are different. Of course trying to go to sleep again, once you're already dreaming, makes no sense (since the dream equipment they were using to share the dream would just be their imaginations constructing "dream"-dream equipment when they attempt to use it from within the dream). It would all be inside of the first dream. There is no actual 2nd dream going on. But then again, that would be getting hung up on dream physics as WE define them. This is a movie. The movie can make the physics whatever it wants. And that's a lot more fun actually.
So, was he dreaming as the end? I like to think it was real. But if it wasn't real, I see Cobb's faith as what saved him from his own regrets, bringing him to the place where he could finally be at peace (home? heaven?).
I've said enough for now. I encourage you to watch the film more than once. You'll see so much more the second go around.
Police and FBI look into a case of a bad man and catch thugs.
The Departed: starring Matt Damon. What could go on in this movie when you have a solid and strong actor like Matt Damon? Well not all was bad. I like the build on the story. And the concept was great. It has some strong actors at best. But at some parts I thought man can this movie just end. Usually action movies try to make the 2 hr and a half time line. This movie was 2 hrs. And something like 26 or 25 minutes. This to me in my opinion it would've been better if the movie was just 2 hrs. And 15 ,minutes. This action movie is no
Jason Bourne movie. This to me is just another run and fight movie. This movie starts off very good and ends I don't know how but it ends badly. This movie the exicution was pretty good and the acting was decent. But the movie in the end was torture.
Overall Matt Damon is a lot better in the Jason Bourne action movies. from overall rating I give the departed
My rating: a decent 5 and a half stars
When you buy a bar of chocolate, you expect chocolate. When you splash out on a new pair of shoes, you expect shoes. And so it is when you sit down to watch a film called Fighting, you expect a fair bit of fighting.
Say what you will about Snakes on a Plane, it had plenty of snakes on a plane and Big Nothing was well, big on the nothingness.
Fighting, on the other hand, has about as much fight as a hibernating squirrel.
Urban action flick..?
Director Dito Montiel clearly didn’t attend the Jean-Claude Van Damme School of underground fighting films. Montiel instead steers his vehicle away from its self-proclaimed premise and parks it in the ‘urban action flick’ zone.
This contemplative drama about underground fighting – a paradox if I’ve ever heard one – follows the story of small town boy hustling his way through the big city.
Shawn MacAuthur, played by Channing Tatum, quickly forms an uneasy alliance with a scam artist who inducts him into the violent world of bare knuckle fighting.
The fights, however, are few and far between and weak choreography means when they do come, they aren’t overly exciting or inventive.
It is perhaps unfair to lambaste Montiel for a new spin on the tired street fighting genre and his movie is admittedly far from terrible.
What it lacks is pace and conviction to its central premise – fighting. Consequently I was more frustrated than a monkey midway through a world banana shortage.
Blood and bone…
Fighting would perhaps have benefited from adopting a similar approach to the 2009 film Blood and Bone. Like Fighting, the premise is basic: an ex-con takes the underground fighting world by storm in a quest to fulfil a promise to a dead friend.
Simple, right?
Unlike Blood and Bone though, Fighting fails to accept the limitations of the genre in which it operates.
Blood and Bone is heavy on the Van-Dammisms and lighter on the urban drama.
Was it a stupid film? Absolutely. Was it unrealistic? I didn’t buy it for a minute.
Put simply, however, Blood and Bone was just more fun.
Seconds out, final round…
While Fighting precariously teeters on the edge of a pit of movie despair, it never falls in.
Be that as it may, Fighting is more Van Don’t than Van Damme.
Wednesday evening, flu coursing through my veins, head about to explode. I need a release, an escape from the realities of a cold February night. Mustering just enough energy to hoist my head in the direction of the door, my eyes fix upon a rental that dropped there earlier in the day.
Could this be the antidote to my woes I ask?
Detaching myself from the couch I wobble over and lay claim to the new arrival. What could it be?
Like Charlie Bucket discovering the golden ticket, I peel back the envelope with nervous angst. Pulling the disc partially from its jacket the title comes into view – it reads, Gamer.
Ok I say, it’s not going to be Citizen Kane, but maybe some mindless fun is just what the doctor ordered.
Let me tell you, I’ll never self medicate again!
Bad Medicine…
300’s Gerard Butler stars as Kable in a near-future dystopia controlled by online gamers. Kable racks up an endless body count as he crusades through online environments in a bid to regain his independence.
Sound familiar?
It should do! Directing duo Mark Neveldine and Brian Taylor brazenly draw from a raft of films including The Matrix, Rollerball, The Running Man, The Condemned, Battle Royale and more recently, Paul Anderson’s 2008 Death Race.
Confessions of a Dangerous Mind…
Let me make a quick admission: I rather enjoyed the adrenaline-fuelled Crank. Here Neveldine and Taylor successfully delivered a tongue-in-cheek parody of the modern-day action flick which at times displayed genuine visual invention.
So what happened with Lamer…I mean Gamer?
I’ll tell you what….
Neveldine and Brian pummel the viewer into submission with a barrage of stylistic devices that induce bewilderment rather than excitement.
Non-stop shaky cam, frenetic cuts, and bizarre interludes undermine any dramatic tension between the characters and subsequently you never feel the invulnerable Kable is in any real danger.
What results is action scene after action scene that play out like Transformers with blood – its almost impossible to tell what’s going on.
It’s long been an irritation to me how filmmakers continue to misappropriate the handheld camera. Surely this cinematographic technique of dispensing with stable images marks a calculated attempt to convey realism – think of Saving Private Ryan, the Bourne films and United 93.
So why the dastardly duo embrace handheld like a bull in a china shop is beyond me.
It doesn’t matter how much you shake that cam boys, you’re not going to paper over the thin plot and ineffective characters.
High Concept…?
As is often the case with high-concept films, Gamer’s basic premise wears thin around five seconds in. Displaying the grace of an elephant at a mouse zoo, the film tramples all over the basic ingredients of successful action films. Where’s the emotion, snappy one-liners, explosive/fun action, characters you care about and want to succeed?
Its not rocket science, its simple mathematics!
As a result Gamer resides light-years away from high-concept classics such as Alien, Jaws, and Predator, instead plummeting into the pit of despair with Snakes on a Plane and Godzilla for companions.
Big, brash, and nonsensical at times, the only thing Gamer will cure is insomnia; so proceed with caution, especially if you’re driving.
Guns,guys,Germans,guts,gags,glory,and greatness all packed into one...
Battleground is the Citizen Kane of war films. It brings a honest depiction of World War II and mixes in humor along with it. The plot really doesn't even appear to be part of the movie,but that doesn't matter. The film confused me at times but it always came out on top. The characters are likable and realistic. The actors do a extravagant performance. It's well-paced and has a great score. Although you can go your entire life without hearing about this film,it still is a timeless classic. One of the films greatest moments comes when one of the men carries some soup in one of his 2 army helmets. He never gets close to finishing it though,and eventually puts the helmet with the remaining soup on it over his head as it drips. That part of the movie really moved me for some reason,and it will surely do the same for you. A great cast,a great performance,a great story,and the fact that this film is not based on a book or play or something,nor is it a remake or sequel or prequel(which it gladly had none of) make Battleground essential viewing for everyone. You'll watch it again and again and will not get tired of it. Battleground is cinema at it's best and nothing can change that.It will remain timeless for as long as time itself exists.
31.5/10
The Day After Tomorrow was a film that I really expected a lot out of. Roland Emmerich had two hits under his belt (Independence Day, The Patriot), the movie had a big budget, good cast, and the trailers looked exceptional. The result however seemed as if it were clumsily pieced together at the last minute. The movie is basically divided into two simultaneous movies, neither of which are very good.
The first portion is Jack (Dennis Quaid) trekking through miles of deadly snow to get to his son, because apparently that seemed like a reasonable course of action. Ignoring some of the less believable parts of the script, the whole eskimo journey portion of the movie is not very interesting at all. We don't get to see much of Quaid during this part of the movie (due to the cold gear), but his character is so underdeveloped that I doubt anybody misses him.
The second portion is Sam (Jake Gyllenhaal) waiting for his father, hunkered down in a cold library that begins to flood. Jake Gyllenhaal is a great actor, who has done some really impressive roles over they years, which is why I choose to ignore his performance from TDAT. Alongside his comedic relief supporting cast buddies, Gyllenhaal really does a poor performance with the character. What resulted was a whiny, young teenager who fulfilled the role of being annoying rather than the likable protagonist.
The highlight of this movie is the special effects. Keep in mind that CGI is always going to be relative to the release date, so TDAT won't be as aesthetically impressive today as it was in 2004. With that being said it is still fun to watch some of the scenes from the movie, and Emmerich did a wonderful job in painting a doomsday portrait.
This is basically the same movie as 2012, directed by... you guessed it. Roland Emmerich. If you loved 2012, and you can't get enough of the end of the world, go rent The Day After Tomorrow on Blu-ray and watch it on your big screen HD TV. Turn on the surround sound and you just might be able to justify watching it.
www.AnyMovieReviewed.com
32.5/50
Nobody likes a Negative-Nancy, so I am going to start this review off on a positive note, and tell you what portions of this movie I enjoyed.
Angelina Jolie plays the main character of Evelyn Salt, and does a formidable job in portraying a CIA operative accused of treason/espionage. Liev Schreiber portrays Ted Winter, a higher-up in the CIA who gets caught up in most of the action. Schreiber plays a convincing role, and really helps the audience feel his character out throughout the movie.
Salt also contained one car chase in particular that was pretty exciting and rather well shot to boot.
The enjoyable parts of Salt however are overshadowed by a number of painstaking flaws. The plot of the movie is just simply not believable. Yes I know it's fiction, and yes I know that it's meant to entertain, but I can't help but become distracted and reminded that I'm watching a movie every 5-10 minutes when Evelyn Salt makes Harry Houdini look like children's birthday party magician. To complement this is a series plot twists which have so many holes that you find yourself laughing instead of surprised. I'd say that roughly one-fourth of actions taken by characters in the movie Salt directly contradict what ends up being their ultimate goals in the end, and another quarter are just completely unnecessary.
The direction of this movie by Phillip Noyce isn't much better, as many shots seem hectic and unorganized. Toward the end of the film, there is some interesting contrast in shots, but aside from these the direction is quite forgettable.
The score of the film is composed by James Newton Howard, who worked alongside Hans Zimmer to score The Dark Knight (2008). The music by Howard is about as bland as you can get for a spy thriller, and never really captured my interest at all. Upon a further review of the music, some of the songs are nice, they just seem like they belong in a concert hall rather than a movie theater. Sometimes the overall content of a film imposes itself onto a score rendering it equally as dull, and perhaps that has happened in this case as well.
Salt is a movie that you should see if you're a big fan of spy movies. The film has more twists than a pretzel, so if you like surprises then check it out. Outside of that fan base you would be well off to save your money for a better movie. The tagline of the movie asks "Who is Salt?" I ask "Who cares?"
www.AnyMovieReviewed.com
