Reviews

As usual, an expensive cast can't help with a poor script of less than B-grade quality. Kevin Hart is mis-cast and has zero charisma as the supposed leader of an elite team of art thieves. A few other names show up but have little to do.

Action is kind of feeble, except for the initial Venice boat chase which is just OK. The actual plot, such as it is, makes very little sense, and seems essentially random.

Even my wife, who is very tolerant for basic fun movies, was openly mocking the ridiculous and predictable script by the end.

Yes, it's another half-hearted by the numbers effort by Netflix. No, it's really not worth your time. I regretted watching it.

Although it has some good elements and makes a reasonable effort at character building, this film seems to struggle in tone. Is it a thriller? Well, there are perhaps 20 minutes that might count as thrilling. Is it an action movie? There's some action, but long sections of the movie have none. Is it a study in how terrorists are created? Maybe a little, but the motivations seem flimsy and more time is spent on a clumsy romance. Is it a gritty English drama? Kind of, but a lot of it is quite subdued and not dramatic at all. It also has some rather absurd plot moments (getting explosives through an elaborate attack on an arms dealer? Um, I don't think arms dealers carry around plastic explosives in a briefcase), and a ridiculous conspiracy that comes out of nowhere.

With some rewrites and a lot of editing this could be a pretty good film, but instead it's a somewhat boring mess.

This is not your traditional Guy Ritchie movie with slick fast paced action, clever humour and lots of twists. Which I have loved in the past. It is basically a combination of heist movie and revenge thriller. But it's played very straight, without a lot of effort to build characters, and doesn't ever seem to build much momentum. So a few times during the movie I found myself looking at my watch, wondering if it was really going anywhere.

The action is fairly tight but mainly gunplay, not much physical action as Statham is famous for.

There are no heroes either, Stathams character seems to be a pretty nasty piece of work himself.

All in all, it's an average thriller with nothing in particular to recommend it.

We watched it for a while and it seemed like it had potential, but half an hour in an nothing had really happened. The trailer made it look like a fast moving action comedy but it was more like a wannabe Tongan Quentin Tarantino movie, with dialogue that tried to be slick but needed another couple of passes through the editing room. Wow, the dude was cut though! Some shirtless scenes for the ladies.

Tells a reasonably honest war story, and makes some effort to be realistic, but that's about where it wnds. Dramatically it does nothing. The beginning and middle is OK, but a weak ending unfortunately shows the lack of budget, poor acting, and very pedestrian directing. Some real equipment and uniforms is about the best part. The American lead seems totally out of place with his pretty boy haircut, but the Brits don't bring much either. There's some awkward Interludes with the Polish scientists family that are nevertheless the most moving parts of the film.

Multiple complex interwoven plot lines, vivid characters, an exhibition of the various vices... what more could you ask for in a colourful Kiwi TV show? The occasional moment of duff acting doesn't put a dent in a very entertaining journey. Great work from writers, directors, actors and the rest.

A very basic tale of survival with two characters loose on a strange unexplained world. While very atmospheric, the sci-fi setting is pretty much irrelevant (although strangely much time is spent on an almost absurd organic 'mining' sequence).

Acting is really quite good, but unfortunately they are working with a pretty basic story that seems to be missing many pieces, including any reason we should care about what's happening.

I think if you liked the psychedelic travel sequences in 2001, or the slow meandering pace of The Arrival, you may find something to appreciate in this minimalist film. However, I don't personally find anything to recommend in it.

This movie may be a good first time effort for the director, but it does almost everything wrong. The story can't decide what it's about, the characters are thinly sketched and inconsistent, the effects from tolerable to embarrassing, and the sets and locations looked almost exactly like a 70s Doctor Who or Star Trek effort. There is sometimes a decent atmosphere and some camera work is effective. But it's the muddled story which often makes no sense, that killed it for me. It's not that is was too complex, it's simply that scenes, and even individual dialog lines, didn't connect to each other in any way.

I think possibly if you watched it slightly drunk and with the sound off, it could seem like an amusing diversion, because of some effective images - mostly skies with planets and ships. But trying to follow it like a proper movie just leads to disappointment.

This movie will probably overjoy you if you're already a student of Russian history and art. Or, if you are a student of film you will appreciate the technical and organisational brilliance in creating a film in one extended shot. If neither, you'll likely find sections of it rather dull.

But for me, the one experience that is unbeatable here is in the last 15 minutes or so: to see the old Tsarist palace come to life with an enormous ball to which you are invited. Swirl with the dancers, cheer the accomplished orchestra, be intrigued by the pantheon of powerful figures from Russia's past (some glimpsed only briefly) - and then float away down the magnificent staircase and hallway out to the cold winter sea. Farewell Europe... a beautiful dream of times past.

Like the sports it is about, this movie is a lean and straightforward study of what it takes to become the best, from two quite different perspectives. There are no gimmicks, little drama, no bad guys, just understated visions of struggle and triumph.

As many have said, Vangelis' one-of-a-kind score elevates the movie from merely good to great, but I feel that separating them might be foolish: as the best scores do, it becomes one with the movie and the end result is an extraordinary whole, not a "good movie with a great score".

I can see why many people don't like it. It doesn't have many conventional elements of a movie and is about mood as much as plot. But, for those whom it suits, there is much inspiration to be found in this simple tale.

There's no doubt about it, Mr von Trier is clever, and can write a story. The story is quite interesting, although loses its way a little at some points, and at other points the trauma heaped on the protagonist is just too over the top.

However, this movie smacks of clever dickiness; of being clever just for the sake of it. Realistically, this is not a movie; a rational description is a stage show that happens to have been filmed. That's fine; but mentally masturbating about this as some kind of inspiration is not necessary. It's simply a choice that most people wouldn't bother exploring, because it's fairly obvious that it's not going to be very useful. Interesting? Yes (somewhat). Clever? Yes. Great? Not especially.

Return of the King, Extended Edition, is a decent improvement on the theatrical release, except for a couple of small mis-steps.

The EE improves the flow of the story immensely, succinctly explaining a lot of points that before seemed a little arbitrary. It extends some crucial parts of the movie to greatly improve the sense of time passing, such as Frodo and Sam crossing Mordor. It includes the much-missed conclusion to Saruman and Wormtongue's story - not in the same style as the book, which depended on the unfilmed (and unfilmable) Scouring of the Shire, but in an appropriate way that stays true to the spirit of the book. (In fact this scene is a good example of the very effective way that the writers collapsed multiple book scenes into one movie scene. Kudos.)

The extended cut also gives a lot more personality and interest to some characters; notably Denethor, Steward of Gondor, but others as well. The battles feel more grueling due to subtle extensions here and there.

It's still not quite perfect; I still think the role of the dead army was too much, detracting from the efforts of the living warriors. This was probably not easily correctable in the EE, since it would have meant filming some quite substantial additional battle scenes, and further the writers had clearly made a decision to go away from the book version here. Still, I would like to see that improved somehow.

The Paths of the Dead itself is extended, but most of this is unnecessary and frankly cheap. Looking back now, the theatrical edition is much superior both for suspense and lack of cheese. I would rather have seen the spooky and sad scene with Bregor's (?) skeleton lying at a the sealed door of some unknown chamber. And if I'm getting fussy, a bit more actual darkness would be nice!

There are other niggles, but they decrease in importance and probably only reflect my opinions and personal vision of LotR.

In terms of story balance, the EE of RotK was what should have been originally released to theatres. Unfortunately, this would have been impossible as it is an hour longer, and many casual viewers already found it much too long.

In any case, the final Extended Edition of Return of the King is absolutely stunning. Where I had previously felt the movie strayed a little too far into traditional "Hollywood blockbuster" territory, the EE now feels balanced, complete, and above all moving and true to the spirit of the book. I thank Mr Jackson, New Line Cinema, JRR Tolkien and everyone else who contributed.

For myself, this is the best series of films ever made, and I am quite happy to call Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King a masterpiece, as is the book it was based upon. Film and book snobs be damned, this is an amazing movie.

I'm struggling, but I can't think of any film or TV series that had more convincing space battles. B5 was too cheesy. Star Wars, ditto. All great fun, but this is the first time I've really felt like I might be watching a documentary from the middle of a space war. I can see that it might not be to everyone's taste, but it astonished and gripped me.

To have it backed up by an interesting story, good to great acting, intelligent and brave yet flawed characters, some interesting themes, and stunningly attractive but also strong women, well that's just incredible. I have to go buy this DVD now.

In a word: amazing.

I'd heard marvelous things about the hilarious scenes in this movie. The discussion about the destruction of the Death Stars in Star Wars was funny in a stoner kind of way, and there were other entertaining moments. But unfortunately there was also a lot of "repartee" that just wasn't very funny and served only to move the "plot" along in a fairly dull way.

I can't see where the semi-legendary status of Jay and Silent Bob comes from, either. They had a couple of modestly interesting scenes, and that's it.

Black and white? Please.

Towards the end of the movie it took itself far too seriously. In one way it was effective: I had an immediate urge to turn it off and do something useful. Was that the objective? Still, for some entertaining and off the wall moments, I give it a 6. Finding it difficult to believe it has nearly 8 by popular vote on IMDb!

After waiting a long time and forgetting the details of the Matrix and Reloaded (and hence not worrying about the many unanswered questions or new characters), I found I just enjoyed it as a big dumb actioner, with a bit of a unique flavour.

The first hour of Revolutions plods a bit, like Reloaded, wasting time on irrelevancies like the train station. So there's an easy half hour to trim (Reloaded was bulging with similar scenes). This prevents the movie from achieving any kind of greatness.

Perhaps if Reloaded and Revolutions had been edited tightly as one movie, it could have been great. Instead we got one mediocre and one half decent movie.

One little quibble with the effects: the tracers from the machine guns (hehe) were too perfectly straight and consistent. This made it look artificial to me, especially when they were all shooting at the hole in the roof, but in closeup the guns looked more convincing and cool.

All in all, fun, but forgettable. Standard action-scifi fare.

This is just a big rollercoaster ride of effects and fun rip-offs of classic movies. The plot hangs together OK, it's not just random events. David Wenham is entertaining enough, Hugh Jackman has fun with a simple role, Kate's OK. It doesn't really let up at all, except for a few minutes. If that's not you, don't go. If you want a fun popcorn movie, this is the thing.

Hm, IMDB wants 10 lines now. Grr. Like there's a point saying alot about this movie. Oh well. It's no oscar contender, just fun stuff, like the Mummy and the Mummy 2 (the first one was maybe a little bit more coherent than the second)

1. Kids (especially young kids) do like to see the same things repeated over and over with variations. Kids TV shows tend to be like this, they will even watch the same episode over and over. So this could explain why many did not mind the fact that the first 30 minutes of CoS covers the same ground as the start of SS.

2. Will this film last? Will the kids who loved it look back on it when they are 25, 45, 65 and still think it was great, or will they wince and think "yeah it was fun, but..." such as I do looking back on "Battle Beyond the Stars" or "Battlestar Galactica".