Reviews

The graphic artists did a good job but when you have to start your story by saying it's authentic - especially considering it's all in English and mostly not filmed in Japan - well some will remember mega-bass(tm), and that seems well geared for the beats wearing young viewers audience. A simple story of revenge and honour wasn't enough op. In the original story this guy committed an offence while the shogun visited but the way he was ordered to commit suicide by lesser officials wasn't appropriate and it was undignified. There is an overwhelming desire to set the record straight for posterity. Tension builds with time and anger, despair. There is a show of restraint and solidarity, all the ronin rooting for the common cause - setting their master's and their clan's honour straight - and having their life come to a meaningful conclusion once this is accomplished, by murdering expediently and violently those who didn't act in good faith. It is a very human and simple Japanese feudal story; a story of every day life.

In the modern movie you can really feel that sub par and shameful exploitation of a moment in Japan's feudal history, a bit like with The Last Samurai, where Sanada also played with Cruise. It is also quite surreal for a full Japanese cast to be acting in English. One should watch the 1941 version to cleanse himself/herself of this 200+ million $ haunting madness.

Classic revenge story with bosses and personal motivations. What matters is that the martial arts shines and it does here. All the fights are amazing, fast, and with lots of power put into it. Spectacular martial arts and these guys are in top shape. Visually the camera-work is great, with proper focus on the acrobatics, and some slow motion tastefully added a to showcase the artists but never breaking the flow of fighting - they did a real good job with following the action. Honestly I wasn't expecting such great work going into this movie session on some straight to TV material. I mean rooftop chases, bar scenes, street/taxi, dojo, jungle rambo stuff, fighting, language, acting. Plus Adkins is blessed by nature so he's a great martial artists who actually looks pretty good on screen. Anyways I came out amazed and I've many many martial flicks and I really like this one. It's a sure bet in my opinion.

Hopefully Adkins and all can do more of exactly that - top notch ninja flick the likes of which we haven't seen since the 80's. Oh, and I didn't really like the 2009 movie, but this one is spot on.

The material is uneven, but you can sort of feel him in there, his spirit, where he came from, big moments, not all necessarily original but he can be surprisingly funny! I laughed quite a lot (that whole Mitch ongoing story was really a blast), and I'm no fan of the guy, not even as a boxer really. But he is M. Tyson, he's an icon. He's also a man who has to come to age and reflect on his life, as we all do, and personally I think Lee was able to bring some order to this chaotic man on stage, and make it interesting for the viewer. You have to give the man a break really. He was, and in many ways still is, somewhat a brute, struggling with his past, trying to make sense out of it. But it takes guts to do this and come out. It's really not a fact finding mission as in a documentary piece, despite the title - you get themes with some media support and varying levels of engagement from Tyson, from the very personal to the somewhat detached. On the whole I found it was pretty successful. Who would have thought?

This is one of the better Seagal movie, and he plays the father of a dead cop who was shot in the hood... he's on to deliver urban justice... and he delivers! You get some brutal hand to hand combat, car chases, gun shooting and that East side gangster guy cracking jokes, plus a nice little scene with Danny Trejo. It's all very fun. The little side story with Gary and Isaah is just icing on this cake. Don't let the 5.1/10 score fool you. If you want top Seagal and B comedy with funny gangsta lore, this movie will surely please you. I can say this ranks easily amongst the top 5 Seagal ever did in my opinion. It is highly underrated.

Pros: Good music, many beautiful visuals and details, good casting, good acting when the CG is toned down (Gandalf and Galadriel; Bilbo and Gollum etc.), fun variety of locales and monsters.

Cons: Terrible tedious feeling of extended edition rough cut testing your patience unless you're a hardcore geek fan seeking encyclopedic/carnal knowledge of the dwarfs' dirt, many disruption from the immersion i.e. 48fps + transformers physics action scenes, no blood, no wound, all clean like light sabre damage and tons of talk and drivel.

It's starting all to feel like a Star Wars movie. They fight and they're 10 against hundreds but they all in and we know they win hell there's 2 other movies. I can't believe I have to wait 2 freaking years to finish this story when you can read the book in a day. But we get an inside look at goblin, orc and troll psychology and social interactions, just like with all the bugs in Star Wars, it adds depth... soon we see them beasts in context... sleeping, eating, taking a dump, maybe even in real time! Can't wait for cinema to come back to its senses.

If you read a comment like mine, you might want to know what the person honestly thinks, and not what they're paid to say. The movie is hyped as the final closing chapter of the series, but even as I had watched the trailers I wasn't convinced about what I was seeing. Now I know this movie is clearly sub par. It has redeeming features, like being unwillingly campy and funny... If you've watched Star Trek Nemesis, or something like Chronicles of Riddick, things will ring a bell.

Mind you it's not that the story is not "interesting" or that the actors are no good - they're excellent. Maybe it's a first world "feel good" movie for insecure people who are afraid of those liberal hipsters... don't you worry truck drivers and city employees will never take over world thanks to some spandex wearing Batman, with his cute girlfriend. Your daughter will see the light, follow your advice and find a job. And what about our villain born in the mines of Remus? Well, there's a twist but it's real lame and finally our punk with a mask who terrorizes the city is a useless nobody. Plus why go through all of that if you're not going to have the city blown to bits in the end. What's with the "fallen hero" cliché... Skyfall and this, both choosing to go the emo way. He has to train and practice, loses his butler. Can't we have colorful, original and fun action and put to rest the grim abandoned villains and old stories etc.

Finally, as you will see this often feels like a walk down memory lane, with tiny flashbacks, and the actors often feel like they're walking in some museum and presenting the Batman legend to you. Plus I found the fighting sequences a step back from the past two movies...

Trust me, you better wait for this to come out on VHS, despite the score and what the critics say. 6/10

This is an excellent movie. The acting is basically flawless, with Craig giving his very best, and the excellent villain and supporting cast. The music is outstanding, especially in the first part of the movie in my opinion. The opening sequence is a smash and keeps you staring at the action... the opening credits are, as always, a work of art.

Unfortunately, despite superb cinematography and very interesting shooting locations, because of the storyline I find the movie fails at being a simple Bond movie with exotic day time locales and I was expecting a less "realistic" movie for lack of other word. You're treated with something very grim both emotionally and in terms of events and there's nothing pretty there. This movie is simply troubling... draws comparisons in some respects with movies like those based on Ludlum i.e. Bourne or something like Ronin... I really don't get why the critics treat the movie as if it were business as usual. It's dark stuff.

I just watched this tonight. I thought I'd be watching one of those "so bad that it's good" movies - but no, it was quite good, especially considering this was never intended to be released and this made this with 1.5M. Some people can't even build a house with 1.5M.

It was just fun. The acting was nothing special but it wasn't bad. To me this movie is much more faithful to the cartoon show I used to watch when I was a kid than the 2005+ versions. OK, some elements are simply ridiculous but it was like that too in the cartoon i.e. bending the physics of things a little bit i.e. laser beam - read the trivia. And what the hell was that "Jeweler" subplot? Who cares. I couldn't help but laugh when their spaceship explodes in space yet they fall down to earth like other debris. Indestructible 4!! Some things they got right include the Fantastic 4 suits - spot on exactly like in the cartoon, with collar and blue - nice. Ben, the Thing is real funny, they got the rock-look good but he's too small - even smaller than Reeds and with tiny arms - and looks like a cross between a monkey and a lizard from "V", yet when he's in human form he's this real buff guy, much bigger than Reeds loll. I really like the fire effect with the Torch, once again closer to the cartoon from back in the days, unfortunately we only get to see the Torch in all his splendor in the end of the movie. I think what is really accurate is Victor aka Dr Doom... he really has those weird funky gestures and that evil insane laugh and jokes - sadly sometimes the sound is poor due to trying to use the guy's voice with the helmet without any rerecording so its muffled loll. The mask itself is accurate and the overall impression is good.

I give it 6 or anything over the 2005+ versions. Imagine if you had given 100M+ to these guys!!! Most likely it would have ruined it. Yep, nice entertainment for 1.5M. This could be cult - the studio should release it in theatres as it never was... I dare you Hollywood!!! Release and see if you can make more than 1.5M with this. I double-dare you!!!

I don't understand why so many critic, especially on Rottentomatoes, glorify this movie?! Because of them I might have been expecting too much out of it. I like Soderbergh movies mind you. Maybe I should focus more on photography next time I watch it, as the story didn't strike me as so interesting or new and there was little depth to the characters - so we're left simply hearing so many people are dying and feeling mostly nothing for them, which makes you feel sad, but not sad for them, kind of sad for not feeling anything?? We don't even see so many people dying in fact in terms of number, we see maps filled with red, calculations, but it all seems very intellectual and detached. Even the chaos that stems from the news reaching the general population seems half-baked and unconvincing. Maybe we needed more of that instead of trained professionals acting cool as they should.

It was hard to have any sympathy for Paltrow's character given the little time we get to know her and her bubbly unfaithfully secretive casino behaviour i.e. "if that's something you think I should do let me know". And Jude Law's character was just wrong... the movie had this anti-blogosphere tone portrayed with him i.e. "blogging is graffiti with punctuation" and all that condescending bull - this could have been done differently and with more subtlety and it was so irrelevant to the whole storyline. Was that some attempt at comic relief? I think Winslet was the most attaching character, yet I can't understand why, and so were Cottilard's and Ehle's. Unfortunately Winslet dies quick and forgotten and it's unclear what ends up happening to Cottilard in her last appearance. Dammon was OK. Fishburne... had a great voice. I think if it had been any other cast I'd give the movie 4 out of 10.

I can say I really enjoyed the music but that's about it.

If you look at something like Wolfgang Petersen's "Outbreak", you feel tension even in the opening masterpiece sequence as we simply have a walk through of the labs... Here the movie starts up with some tension and the number of inhabitants of those cities and those first sick ones but I found I was quickly let down afterwards. I don't know what went wrong... and that ending... did we really need to see that? Many critics talked about how this movie makes you feel scared of touching objects and others... well I think they wrote their reviews based on the trailers only because the full feature doesn't carry that fear at all.

Back in the days I had refused to watch this. Every girl I knew liked it, it was marketed as "dirty" lascivious dancing, and I just hate dancing honestly. This seemed just stupid. Well, I had made a terrible mistake. Now that Patrick is gone (may he rest in peace), I decided I'd watch everything he ever did - because I really liked the style of the guy, and he fought until the end, like his Dalton character in Road House. Also, movies from the 80's have a heart compared to the cold twilight garbage of today. I'll concede I was a teenager in the later 80's so I may have a bias. Who wouldn't.

What a surprise this was. First of all, maybe this was marketed as "dirty dancing" for the sake of attracting some crowd from the Saturday Night fever era (how sad that movie was btw), or to attract men to it - yet that was such a mistake - should have been called "Love dance" or something like that. This is a "coming of age" movie, about heart, love and dancing, it's a drama about the clash of social classes, abuse, a reminder of the consequences of prohibiting abortion(women pay a price), a movie about family, jealousy, team spirit and it's filled with nice music and songs. This movie is about beauty and fighting for what you believe is right and what feels right and it's quite touching for something that light and entertaining - it's a feel good movie. Yes, I'm a guy. Swayze shines with his dancing, his smile, his acting. He's very natural and fun to watch. Yet the movie is not so much about him as it is about everything else, he's just a catalyst... it's really about a girl becoming a woman through her love and compassion... it all has a "musical" quality to it without being a "musical".

There's no need to go into the details of the story which you will easily figure out when you watch it. My point is that if you've refrained from watching this, well, just watch it, even if you have to do it while your girlfriend is asleep lolll (better yet, watch it with her and dance!!!)... it's just magical and cute!!!

I wonder why people qualify this movie as cheesy or bad or such. This movie is from 1989 and it's one of the best in the genre. It's fun, packed with spirit and laughs, it's just right on the mark, entertaining, and captures the mood of those times of yonder, when style was more than a phone! Spoilers ahead because I'll tell you what you get for watching this. You get:

**Patrick Swayze in an amazing shape, looking good and being cool, making a mullet look good, with tasteful clothing and a cute bum...

**Fun fights in bars, brawls, things flying, mixed martial arts

**An introduction to the rules on how to do that job right i.e. cooler: 1-be nice, 2-take it outside, 3-it's a job, it's nothing personal

**Kelly Lynch naked front/back (and is she pretty or not - oh yes she is!!! that dress?? it's as if she's draping herself with the Swiss flag or something!!!)

**A nice Mercedes

**Swayze doing Tai Chi topless wearing white spandex(come on, you want to see that!!)

**(visually impaired)Jeff Healey and his band playing some nice rock n' roll!!!

**Sam Elliott making long hair and a bad shave look good (mind you he can trim somewhat down there loll) - and that voice and yes he can dance!!!

**A monster truck going thru and thru a car dealership

**Two great explosions with tons of things flying!!

**A sex scene in a barn with the same music as the sex scene in Dirty Dancing (I think?)

**Real fun one liners i.e. "pain don't hurt"!!

**One sweet striptease, and one scene at the exotic dancers (Dalton calling Garrett)

**A taxidermist museum!!!

**Bonus: no one talking on a cell phone!!

It has something for everyone, women and men! Ah, the 80's!!! Today's stuff has no heart...

Well, I'm watching this movie right now for the first time. It's average but it has its moments... I'll be watching Copycat (1995) after for the sake of comparison, since obviously Taking lives "borrows" a lot from it. I have high expectations for it all because I've seen Mindhunters (2004) recently and that was great, which inspired me to watch those "profiler" movies, even though I'm not much into this morbid fascination that has been plaguing American TV for a decade + now. I'm not even finished with this movie, but I had to come here to comment about geography and the casting.

I'm french speaking and I'm from Montréal. You can't understand how annoying it is to have those sorry French losers stand ins of cops play the lead roles with Angelina Jolie (Martinez, Karyo and Anglade). Not only are they very average but their french language doesn't fit the scenery so to speak - happily IMDb notes this as a geography-language goof, and with reason. They had to fly in those arseholes from France to stand in as cops when they could have used much better actors from Québec to do the job and make it right, I mean for C. sake's it's filmed in Québec. Adding insult to injury to blasphemy is to have someone like Julien Poulin (Elvis Gratton, but for those who know, such an amazing stage play actor too... in fact I've seen him play this monologue, Novecento, in Québec city, for 2 hours by himself, and he has such an amazing voice) or even Marie-Josée Croze (Les Invasions Barbares) and also to a lesser extent André Lacoste (Hochelaga, and lots of TV in Québec) play useless extras. Insulting. It is arguable in retrospect that you could have made a better movie with Croze instead of Jolie and with Poulin instead of the 3 frenchies. This must have been a studio deal of some kind. F..... lawyers. To add a cherry of contempt on top of this sundae of masquerade, they show the first contemporary scene in Montréal (the construction site - the triangular shaped buildings you see in the background are the "Sanctuaire" - expensive condos, Céline and hockey players owned some apartments there...), then they switch to Québec city when that woman says she saw her son and the whole thing is filmed there without ever mentioning it. No Montréal is not THAT pretty and there's no castle in Montréal (no the Olympic Stadium is not a castle and anyways real castles don't fall apart 30 years after being built)... the ferry ride when you see the castle, well obviously this is the Château Frontenac (see Hitchcock's/Lepage's movies - I Confess/Le Confessionnal)... I can only imagine some foreigner looking at the movie then coming to Montréal to find the castle... what an insult to Québec city. Hey, as I said I'm from Montréal and it's a great city but the old port is no comparison to old Québec with the castle and Plaines d'Abraham (where Montcalm and Wolfe fought in 1759, leading to the loss of the French colony to the hands of the British). I had to say these things for the sake of posterity. It is such a shame to make a travesty of the province of Québec and of its actors for god knows what stupid contractual reason. If you're not from here then maybe it just looks slightly exotic to you and it won't make a difference. But if you had heard the french language the way we speak it here, now that would have been a truly exotic experience (in this day and age people can use subtitles and enjoy something real and exotic, just like when I watch a foreign film in its original language... we're past hearing Russians speak English with a fake accent and such racist and anglo-centric bull.). I'm sure you get my point. When I watch an American or British movie, I pay great attention to the way people speak, and let me tell you NY is different from Dallas which is different from Statham in "Snatch" and I like to hear the way people speak. You don't hire a British dude to play a Texas Ranger... at least I hope not. Anyways, shame on the studio and the producers for their contempt of geography and their lack of respect for our language and culture. Luckily, IMDb notes all of this in the "goofs" section, albeit with more moderation than me. Also, on a very personal note, when is Jolie going back to blonde... and even dreads, like back in the days when she had a style?

p.s. (edit) at 52:30 into the movie Ethan Hawke says "But only in service to the GREAT CITY OF MONTREAL" whereas it's all filmed in Québec. A real joke. You can clearly see someone had an agenda with this movie. Use Québec city scenery as product placement for Montréal. A real shame. Shame on the studio again for pulling such a stunt!!!

p.p.s OK, I've watched it all. What an unrealistic ending. I won't spoil it for you but come on, she could have easily died there. This might have been Sutherland's shortest role in his entire career and I think Seagal had a greater role in Executive Decision. Lastly, my final geography comment, I could notice 2 scenes in Montreal. Yeah, they took about 10 seconds of footage from the Jazz Fest, you can even see a sign in red, and it's on the exterior scenes around Place des Arts. Also, you get a 3 seconds helicopter sequence where you can see the Olympic Stadium in the background!!! My theory is Sutherland didn't want to travel to Quebec city for a 3 minute role so they shot his scenes in Montreal. Only in service to the great city of Montreal ;-)

I mean, you read the comments and reviews, and you'd expect this movie to be on the same level as Gone in 60 seconds. It's just not. Worst, one reviewer even says that this is way better than the Gone in 60 seconds remake with Cage. I can't understand why so many people would bash the remake. It doesn't do justice to the original OK, but it's a fun movie... you guys are just getting old and your time has passed and you can't accept it. That's just life. Don't take it out on Cage. Considering the garbage Cage has played in in his life, the remake accounts for one of his best. But back to this piece of junk. Hey listen. In no way do I want to show any lack of respect for Halicki. His death is sad, and Gone in 60 seconds will always stand as a masterpiece of the genre - and it's amazing this was shot and there are no special effects - and the guy died doing what he loved. Most of us will die in a retirement home mostly senile because we live so (too) long. For me Gone in 60secs is on par or better than stuff like Vanishing Point and such. Someone said Ronin, right on, great car chases there. Personally I think Diesel did something great with Fast 4 and especially 5, but it's really not the same era and there are so many special effects today and I don't want to further upset the old crowd.

I mean, let's be sincere. OK, a few stunts here and there are fun but that's it. Of course you see Halicki's toy collection, cars but this movie is just plain bad. Luckily Halicki himself shines on the screen. He's just intense and good looking.

The first part of the movie is so dull and long (the part when they try to kill him). OK the opening sequence is fun. Otherwise it's like some walk down memory lane with the references to James Dean etc. Maybe it means something to you guys. Well not to me. And yeah those small planes are fun. But it really shows that many of the sequences are played in fast motion to increase the speed. It's immensely tedious.

The movie kicks in after, when Halicki tries to figure out who did it. It somehow kept my interest for some time. The yellow corvette ride is nice. But hey that's it. You could put any music there but nothing will save this movie. Which is why Halicki was working on a sequel to Gone in 60 seconds. So for me the "Junkman" stands as a slapstick piece for the hardcore fan. It's almost a self-portrait of some kind. Only in that way can it be understood. But don't say this is a good movie.

May he rest in peace.

I don't really understand why this work by Tarantino has to be put in context or why one would say it's a minor work. It's really some of the best directing he's ever done and it feels very real. He didn't write this so what. All the performances are great, and Jackson shines throughout. But it's really about Jackie Brown, and I would go further and say this movie is about Pam Grier.

And is she pretty! I'll always remember the opening credits with the long all in one shot sequence at the airport, and Pam Grier, the way she walks, her amazing hair, the warmth of her skin, there's lots of dignity in the way she walks and it's beautiful, and many shots feature her in a very fashionable, warm and sexy way - ah that suit! Tarantino really triggers you with her flamboyant beauty and her voice and the strength of her character, and each time she's on the screen we're in awe. An amazing showcase - sure I had seen her in Segal's "Above the Law" but you know what I mean. Tarantino saw something I think beyond the script, something very sensual, and romantic and it's sweet that romance with Max and all. And that music. It could have been all cheeseburger a la Pulp but no, Tarantino shows you those actors, their hair, their toes, and it's all silk.

It's really watching this I remember why I found Tarantino so good and Grier so ravishing.