Reviews

Not good, and not horrendous... I think it failed in 4 areas. 1. As film noir, it was dreadful. Dark images do not equal film noir. The script was patchy, and the 'mystery' really wasn't much at all. 2. As an action movie. There wasn't much action (and any that was shown was pretty lame). A slow mo sporadically placed through one of the supposed action sequences made most of the audience laugh unintentionally. The point of a special effect is to enhance, not to make you wonder why it was used. 3. As a game to film conversion... similar to DOA... it was like watching the cut scenes of the game all in one sitting. Minus the fun of playing the game, and the intrigue of the story. Plot holes and game/ action film clichés were unfortunately littered throughout and there didn't seem to be anything in between (ie; a game) to fill the gaps. 4. The acting... there were a lot of actors there that I don't mind watching, but I'm not sure if it was bad direction or just that they were bored that they all came across more wooden than Pinocchio. Olga, Chris and Beau were all highly under utilised (see Iron Man or A History of Violence for how to use small character roles effectively).

The only area that worked (and it would seem the only area where anyone actually paid any attention to the game) was visually, it looked great (I'm talking art direction and colour here, not the direction) but in all honesty. That's about it though.

Watch if you're bored, if you liked Hit-man or if you thought the visuals of 'The Cell' made up for the rest of the movie.

It's interesting reading the different reviews here. Everyone's entitled to an opinion of course, but I see a lot of people badgering this film for being, exactly, what the series was. When these very same people admit to liking/ loving the series.

I've seen pretty much most episodes more than once either with girlfriends or... even when it was on, it was just me at home and I actually had a choice! I did find it a little sad that often, women would want to live their lives through the characters though (well, maybe being Charlotte isn't a bad thing), as the characters were tremendously flawed and shallow. I mean, I love Californication, but I don't want to be Hank. I just see bits of similarities in him (the good, bad, and the ugly).

I was also bemused that so many women said it was a show for feminists. When deep down the show was about women aiming to be completed by men (or at least searching for this) and sadly, by also acting like, what actually would be considered bad masculine qualities. Have a perfect guy? Naa, too boring, go after the one who's still married... then complain that men are all the same. Even more interesting that most episodes were written by men... and directed by men... (yes, based on a novel by a woman, but still, you get my drift) but, I'm waffling. Point being, it was still a very well made series and deserved it's accolades. Well directed, edited and crafted.

While through it all, the characters had a strong bond with each other, through thick and thin, and good and bad choices.

So, onto the actual film... I think it went exactly where it had to.

The characters learn't a little more about themselves, and actually, grew up a little. Yes, I know a lot of people have mentioned that they thought they were more immature than in the series, but, the difference is, before, everyone said one thing (eg; I'm strong, and don't need men to be a successful woman), and acted another (continuing to follow their men around). Where as now, they're actually doing what they're saying. They were actually mourning, angry, happy, etc, but acknowledging it. They may still make mistakes, but at least they're no longer pretending to be stronger than they really are. After all, being a strong woman doesn't mean one can't get upset or show 'weakness'. Whether you believe in their choices in the film is another matter though.

Maybe the viewers are growing up and think that SATC isn't what they thought it was, or maybe there are a lot of jaded men out there who just wanted to give it low ratings out of resentment, but, I definitely don't think it deserves to be panned so much when absolute drivel like Transformers gets 7.5 (are you kidding me????).

I think I must've been watching a different movie to the one everyone else has reviewed here...

Sure, it doesn't have to be the same storyline as the original, but did it have to be so overly simplified? How could a kid's cartoon (and comic book series) actually have more depth than a movie (I know its Michael Bay, but still..)?? The whole point of the series was the character development of the Transformers (hence the name) with the human characters secondary. In this movie, the Transformers were secondary and not even introduced until half way through as actual characters. It had every cliché the writers thought they could put in there. You know, nerd boy has cool rebellious girl fall for him while saving the world.. actually, the movie seemed to place more emphasis on this plot device than the actual invasion. There have been many cliché movies, but at least they don't feel as corny. Which leads me to the human characters (in this case, the main characters). None of them were interesting and all felt very one dimensional. There were a lot of human characters (more than robots) and all seemed trivial. While the whole point of 'robots in disguise' or 'more than meets the eye' is that the Transformers are fighting their war whilst trying not to be noticed.. not attacking anyone they can, and having wars in the middle of the city ala Godzilla.

A point of major contention on the internet before the release of this movie seemed to be the designs of the Transformers. I decided to reserve my judgement until I saw the movie.. Unlike the story, the character designs in this movie were so overly complicated. Sure, the 80's designs can be updated, but not completely changed to the point of being unrecognisable and indistinguishable between each other. The original characters were easy to pick apart (simple and effective colour schemes and face designs) without having to hear their voices. Instead, all I saw was an ugly mash of grey wires and metal blending on the screen most of the time. The vehicles may have looked good, but not the robots. Actually, most of the faces reminded me of the robot from 'Short Circuit'.. They definitely didn't feel Japanese designed and again made the Transformers feel secondary.

And finally, the product placement got pretty annoying. Its bad enough to see the same brands over and over again, but even worse to hear constant references to products.

So, I guess what I'm trying to say is that I didn't find this to be a great movie, or even a good summer blockbuster. Its an OK movie (that has an OK action sequence at the end) but little or no character development of the Transformers, boring human characters, boring designs and little in common with the original series aside from the names. Stick to the cartoon, or watch Die Hard if you want action..

When this movie first came out I absolutely hated it but having just watched it again I don't think its 'that' bad. It's not a very deep movie and glosses over a lot of its issues and themes to the point that I missed them originally. Maybe I was expecting too much from this 'dark and gritty' police drama..

It looks to be a simple story of morales. Nothing to do with law. Just about egos and mainly noting that a criminal is still a criminal with or without a badge. Ethan's character's turmoil seems to be more that he keeps hoping that Denzel's character will eventually show him something through his unorthodox teaching 'methods'. Instead he simply learns what not to do and that he doesn't believe in Denzel.

That's all. The ac tings OK, and the direction competent. So doesn't deserve rave reviews, but probably doesn't deserve bad ones either.

You can't really compare this to "Lock, Stock" as they are two completely different movies. This movie is a lot more similar to "Once Upon A Time in America". But I have to say that I enjoyed this more. Especially with repeat viewing.

Paul Bettany is brilliant as Gangster 55, and the rest of the cast are great too (that includes Macdowell).

The story revolves around a young Gangster working his way up in the underworld.

*spoiler* The point of the movie I guess is that Gangster realises that the whole of his life he was competing with Freddie Mays to be number one, when Freddie Mays was actually too busy living his own life to care. It takes Freddie to come out of Prison for it to hit home with Gangster. Gangster realises his own life, and very existance as a person is pretty meaningless. *end spoiler*

The only thing I would have liked would have been a bit more of Gangster before he met Freddie Mays. (His previous jobs). But aside from that, its a movie that gets better the more you watch it.

Once Upon a Time in America is still a great movie as well though.

8/ 10

Just a quick note on the much debated ending.

----------------------------------------------------

Jerry won adulation from his superficial peers who didn't have the courage to stand up against their oppressors, and instead simply followed whoever seemed to be `on top'.

A rather shallow victory if one at all, as succeeding in a circus-like fight against just one minion of the `Vigils' could hardly have been Jerry's desired ending.

After all that, Archie was simply replaced by his apprentice.

Cormiers ending was a far longer one and obviously darker. However this ending is still satisfying as the same underlying story remains, Jerry stood up for what he believed but in the end he was still a pawn.

One of the better action flicks, with one of the more creative uses of "bullet time" (camera revolving around a static scene) than seen before. All in all the movie had its cliches' but there have been far worse action movies on the market (take some of Michael Bay's movies for example) so expect to leave the movie feeling pretty pleased, why, you even get to see Halle Berry naked (Although for whatever reason aside from eye-candy I don't know). Just two points though:-

1) Why must any scenes in movies that are related to computers be highly unrealistic? For anyone who knows a bit about computers its pretty obvious that it would take someone just as long to create a GUI as seen in "Swordfish" as it would to break an encrypted password. Anyone "breaking" a code would be typing in code and not moving 3D images on a screen, oh well.

2) For some some strange reason some reviewers have called Travolta's character a cold-blooded murderer however:- *spoiler* Travolta's character never actually kills anyone "good" on purpose in the film, yes he kills some guys who chase him (but they are trying to kill him first), yes he kills a senator (who is corrupted)and yes some innocents get killed (because the swat team screws up) but never an innocent on purpose. So in actuallity he isn't that cold-blooded after all. Kinda similar to the bad guys in John Woo movies. (Oh yeah, he kills a porn king and a drugged-out porn actress too)

Well, thats my two cents. As usual watch the movie and enjoy it on your own merits as my opinion is just that, my opinion.