Change Your Image
gunflyer
Reviews
The Dark Knight Rises (2012)
The Dark Knight Rises above
There have been a remarkable set of mixed feelings on The Dark Knight Rises. Some people loved it, and strangely enough to myself, some people hated it. I'm going to be honest with you and say that even after the first viewing I wasn't so sure myself about The Dark knight rises. But after repeat viewings and taking in little details from each viewing, I've found the Dark knight rises to actually be a great film that actually grows on you. This unusual quality makes it a film that makes it enjoyable after repeat viewings. No matter what anyone tells you, there's no denying this: Christopher Nolan has made the best Batman trilogy ever.
What makes it so great though? You'll hear a lot of people complaining about plot holes or something, when all that should matter is the overall quality of the story. The story of course consists of some very important elements, themes and story arcs of all the main characters. For the first time, Bruce Wayne is the main character and not Batman. His arc with this film is complete and it's glorious. Beyond the obvious metaphor of the pit he is thrown in there is another rather interesting metaphor with the rope and having to climb without it to escape. Did Bruce Wayne EVER really escape that well he fell down all those years ago? What does it mean to escape that hole without the rope? It's a metaphoric birth to something grand, because for the first time in a long time, Bruce Wayne must escape his pit without his bat suit, without all his toys. He must rely only on his own spirit which has been shattered by Bane. That to me is great, comic book stuff that we never see in superhero movies anymore because writers are too obsessed with the whole show our hero in costume aspect of their movies doing nothing but kicking ass. Reminding us Batman as a hero with feet of clay who isn't completely indestructible truly drives up the tension and serves to make the final act incredibly exciting. The buildup is undeniably effective and emotional to the extreme.
It's also great to see that this film even gave the villainess Catwoman a complete story arc. The movie portrays a woman who goes from criminal to the antithesis of that, but not in some contrived overnight fashion. Selina Kyle realizes that once she has what she wants, that maybe it isn't what she wanted all along and as a result you can see her remorse, and apparently so could Bruce. It's great to see Catwoman portrayed as a character with great cunning without making her look like a psycho. She is a character with believable dimensions and Anne Hathaway's acting was fantastic.
Again, Gary Oldman is amazing as Gordon. He has fallen in a way during this film and is desperately trying to redeem himself for letting Batman take the fall for Harvey Dent's death. Tom Hardy is excellent as Bane. One of the most interesting lines in the film is when somebody in the prison says that Bane wears the mask to keep the pain at bay. Could that be true of Bruce Wayne? Does his mask keep the pain at bay too? Is the same thing true of Catwoman? I tend to think this is very true, regardless of the reason for wearing the mask, it turns the person into somebody else they no longer are. In doing so, the masks they all wear in some respect ward off the pain.
But most interesting to consider is the story arc of Blake, because we must consider what is not on screen, the future of his character. What he does in this film, he couldn't do as Robin or Nightwing, but as a man demonstrating his courage and bravery in the face of certain death. He is a worthy successor for Batman's cape and cowl, don't you think?
The Dark knight Rises in my view sort of got a raw deal for how it wasn't The Dark Knight. But then again, what film is? In order for Batman to rise, he must first fall
and fall hard. This film beautifully captured the superhero spectacle in a way that no franchise ever will for the foreseeable future. It's an incredible achievement and a monument to the sub genre of Superhero film epic.
A Good Day to Die Hard (2013)
Seriously... this was WRITTEN?
The Die Hard films started off very promisingly with a typical cop going up against a deviously brilliant terrorist(Alan Rickman) then up against the guy from section 31 on Deep Space Nine, then with the third installment the series started to weaken, then with Live free or Die hard, there was at least some excitement and tension still present. But with A good day to die hard? Nobody cares anymore, not even the audience.
A good day to die hard is about as by the numbers written and directed as you can possibly get. Apparently, John Mcclane has a son we haven't seen since the first film who's a super spy and they break some guy out of prison for some reason. The problem is that John Mcclane feels like a guest star in his own movie! His role is reduced to second banana and his son is poorly written with hardly any back story. The set up isn't fun or exciting, and feels about as fun and well written as last year's "Taken 2".
A good day to die hard might be exciting if you've never seen motion pictures before but... nope, not even under those circumstances, this movie is so bad that watching it will probably make you not want to watch another film, ever again. Skip it and go back to the first or second movie.
Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005)
A movie that only succeeds on the merits of lowered expectations...
People have really lowered their standards in many aspects of life. Unfortunately this has also crept into the standard of entertainment we all watch. Let's face a simple truth: after the turd that was episode 1 and the arguably much worse episode 2, anything was bound to look far better by comparison. But when comparing the original trilogy to the prequel turdigy, I want you to consider the themes. Really, what ARE the themes in any of the prequels, even 3? If you're going to say anger for episode 3, that's fine but how does this one theme make this movie any good?! In order for us to enjoy this kind of film we need to have a protagonist we all clearly identify with! And do we identify with any of the Jedi? You might identify with Padme, but she doesn't really do anything except pout, cry and shoot some lasers. She's not a strong character with dimensions like Princess Leia.
I want you the viewer to honestly contemplate this question... why do you think Revenge of the Sith is a good or great film? If it's because of the story, there really isn't one, the lifeless, one-dimensional characters like Anakin Skywalker, Obi-Wan and Padme Amidala drift along through a predictably boring series of events to an inevitable conclusion that isn't dramatic, surprising or the least bit fun.
I say Anakin Skywalker and Padme are one-dimensional characters because they are very limited in how well they are written as characters. So to be fair, the bad acting may not be just due to the actors but poor directing and writing. Anakin is just angry all the time and doesn't know how to exercise self-control and doesn't even try. He was never a good man because ever since he became a man, he was always the antithesis of everything the Jedi taught. This doesn't just go against how Obi-Wan described him in episode IV, but it also makes the main character very limited, very unsympathetic and as a result you're left sad and empty and wondered why Luke still thought there was good in Anakin at all.
The major problem though is the writing. It just isn't there. I want you to consider what was the point of Revenge of the Sith, or for that matter, ANY of the Star Wars prequels? Because the characterizations were always poor. The Jedi in the prequels were always the same: passive and emotionless drones who spit out empty platitudes and never have any ability to use their powers to sense true evil then take action against it until it's already too late. (Swinging lightsabers in an arena against a bunch of pawns doesn't count). Consider how many times you see the Jedi walking side by side talking about plot exposition and for how long that sort of thing goes on for. And when they're not well-written, the characters are often being inconsistent. We saw in episode 2 that Padme was always flat-out spurning not just Anakin's advances, but him as a person. Then for SOME reason she falls in love with him shortly after he confesses to murdering women and children. But then in episode 3, Anakin murders people(including CHILDREN) and she gets all weepy and worried. You can't have it both ways!!! You either write consistent characters or you risk making a sub-par piece of Bantha poodoo.
One of the best examples of inconsistency among the characters is when Anakin comes to Palpatine's rescue on Coruscant where he quickly runs into shot then he suddenly and inexplicably slows his pace for no reason. Then... instead of fighting with Mace Windu, we get the cheapest death of all time when Anakin chops off his arm and Palpatine zaps Mace out the Windu... I mean window.
Ask yourself... what is at stake in this movie? Is anybody really in any sort of danger? We know Anakin's not going to die, we know Padme's not going to die(Even though she did in this movie anyway and that's ANOTHER contradiction with Return of the Jedi), we know Obi-Wan and Yoda are safe from harm. The only characters in any sort of danger are the tertiary ones and we already KNEW they would get wiped out! Again, episode 4 DISCLOSED that information to us! So what important events took place in the prequels that weren't made known in the original Star Wars trilogy? Well.... Ummm...
It breaks down simply to this: Anakin was good once(But really wasn't), then he became Darth Vader. He betrayed, helped hunt down and destroy the Jedi Knights, betrayed and "murdered" Luke's father. These are important events to be sure... but ALL disclosed within episode IV! Was Palpatine's rise to power all that important? No, because it wasn't really important to the framework of the story. Sure, it pretends to, but it's meaningless and it's impotence to be an important part of a universe where politics has replaced the exciting drama and tension of the original trilogy.
I'll tell you what I tell everyone else about Star Wars, skip the prequels and stick with the original Trilogy.
Django Unchained (2012)
Vastly overrated... VASTLY! Did I mention Vastly?
I love Spaghetti westerns. I love A fistful of dollars, for a few dollars more, and of course the movie that defines Spaghetti westerns... The Good, the Bad and the Ugly. Yeah... Django Unchained doesn't even begin to hold a candle to any of those classics. The truth is I liked the performances. Christoph Waltz and Jamie Foxx were excellent. Even Leonardo Dicaprio's performance was okay. However, and this is a BIG however, this film, much like many of Tarantino's most recent works, needs editing, BADLY! I really didn't like Inglorious Basterds that much, and I don't like a lot of Tarantino's films because I feel the characters lack humanity. However... the characters Django and Doctor Schultz have some humanity in them. But did that raise this movie up? No it didn't! Instead, we get thirty gallons of blood spurting every other damn time somebody fires a gun, we get long stretches of movie that don't need to be there, and as a result I honestly believe the final product suffers from the unmitigated run time.
Let's face it, the very inappropriate rap music hurts the film too. This is supposed to be a SPAGHETTI western! Not a damn Gangsta Drama set in the east side homie!!! Annoyed yet? Good, now you know how I felt because of the anachronistic soundtrack. Now, I admit there are times when anachronistic music can do a movie good(See Moulin Rouge), but there is no excuse in Heaven, Earth or(Yes, even Hell) that you can give me where we have to have frickin' gangsta rap playing over the soundtrack... OF A MOVIE TAKING PLACE IN THE 1850's!!!!!!!!!!!! I'm sorry, this just makes me so damn angry you can't even imagine.
The gore and the blood and the unnecessary visceral details and the prolific use of the N-word detracts from this movie so badly that it does not feel anything like a genuine spaghetti western, not even close. I'll tell you why right now: I can't ever imagine ever watching Django Unchained ever again in my lifetime. It's just a soulless little movie that left me unhappy and regretting that I didn't go see Les Miserables instead.
Kill Bill: Vol. 2 (2004)
Overrated Tripe, volume 2
I find volume 2 to be the better of the two Kill Bill films... but that's mostly because compared to the first, this one is much lighter on the ridiculous amounts of blood and gore, and a little higher on the drama. The problem is... in doing so, the movie becomes boring and ends up looking as though it needs more editing. I mean seriously, part of the Film is about Budd going to work and getting fired or something and for some reason, Tarantino really thought we needed to see this whole damn sequence which doesn't establish a set up or anything or serve any purpose later in the film. Other parts of the film linger for far too long on many different shots too in my opinion. I don't know what Tarantino was thinking, maybe he thinks he's Stanley Kubrick or something? No, Tarantino is no Kubrick. Not by many thousands of light years.
Instead, the Bride almost gets killed by Budd when in the previous film she killed many, many experts with the deadly arts, when she gets buried alive by a dumb ass hick. But that's the least of the problems with the film. My biggest problem is this: It's been established by this film that Bill is in love with Beatrix(The Bride), who is in hiding from assassins because she's pregnant. Obviously, Bill loves her. Want to know HOW much he loves her? He loves her SO much that he tracks her down, murders everyone in a church, shoots Beatrix in the head, takes her baby, puts her in a coma then into a hospital she is repeatedly RAPED while in that coma. Welcome to a world where nothing makes sense people.
My point is... this movie, and the one that preceded it are based on a premise that is so incredibly, inexplicably dumb that I can't possibly wrap my mind around it. Bill loves her so much... that he almost kills her, AND takes her baby. You know what? I almost forgot that definition in the dictionary that defines love as almost murdering the one you love. Now, I understand if Bill is really emotional. I understand if he's really sad, or really angry. But I don't understand the mentality of somebody who loves somebody so much that when you find her again someday... you shoot her in the god damn head!!! That makes absolutely no sense to me, no matter how much I try to rationalize or explain it to myself. Frankly the premise causes the whole film and the last to crumble apart into dust for me. Kill Bill volume 1 sucked... and this one sucks too.
On the plus side... some of the music is REALLY great and some of the ideas are fun and original, like Beatrix digging her way out of the grave. But otherwise, I would never recommend this series to anyone.
Star Trek: Nemesis (2002)
The TNG movies bottom out... again
Let's see, since the dignified send-off that was Star Trek 6, we've had Star Trek Generations, which sucked, First contact, which wasn't too bad, Insurrection which sucked, and Nemesis which was an impressively horrible piece of crap. TNG was amazing in that it broke the even numbered trek myth.
See, the thing that makes this and the other TNG films god awful was that the focus was primarily Picard in Data in a way that the characters were regulated practically to background status. The other big problem is that this film is an obvious, cheesy tribute to Wrath of khan, which believe me considering how bad this film is is a terribly embarrassing thing to say.
The other thing is that it seems like the makers of this movie forgot about everything that came B4(Pun intended). They find an android on a barren planet, and put it together because they're SURE it won't cause them problems(Anybody remember Lore?) Then they meet Shinzon, who looks like Doctor evil and is supposed to be Picard's clone(Another story device used in about 10 different episodes of TNG) and it turns out he needs Picard's blood, even though he piddled around for 2 days and didn't say or do anything while the Enterprise was right THERE smack in front of them.
What makes this movie truly offensive however isn't the plot holes, it's the lack of character growth, the lack of any sense of adventure. It's just a story that plods along slowly until they get into a position to fire a beam of green stuff at Earth and Captain Picard insists on going over to the Bad guy's ship because it's "something he HAS to do"... alone? No security team? No using transporters on board the shuttles? Come on! This guy was beaten by Malcom Mcdowell! The kids from Baby Geniuses could kick your ass Picard! With that, let's face it: Jean Luc is not an action hero! He's not Bruce Willis! He's not even frickin' Alec Guinness! The only reason he went over there alone was so Data could sacrifice himself in a vein and pathetic attempt to wring some more emotion out of the franchise. It was so obvious and contrived however that it just didn't work. Everybody, fans and critics alike universally hated this movie. Recently there have been some people who've sprung up to comment on how they liked this movie, which I don't understand at all. There is no redeeming value at all to this movie, the characters don't grow, the acting is nothing special, the effects are okay, but the story is on par with the action movie of the week, and not even a good action movie like The Expendables. It has none of the magic and tone of the original series films or the charisma... which was captured much better in the follow-up in JJ Abrams vision of Star Trek.
Transformers: Dark of the Moon (2011)
Improved where it needed to, and that's all I was asking for
A LOT of people have really gone off the deep end with their critical reviews. Honestly, Dark of the moon, and all the Transformers movies for that matter could have been so much more, so much better. There's no denying that at all! At this point though, we knew what to expect walking in, I knew what to expect walking in. Honestly, I liked this movie. I enjoyed the big dumb action, because even as bad as the Transformers movies have gotten, they still have giant robot wars, and for me, that trumps movies about Boy Wizards or typical action films. What is important is that there isn't just a marginal improvement over revenge of the fallen in this movie, there is a huge improvement over that film. The story is far better, the characters have more to do. The ONLY real complaint I can agree with is that there needed to be some more scenes removed from this film. Seriously, this movie could have done with 15-20 minutes worth of editing.
When the problem in your movie amounts to a lack of editing, I have really got to ask about the basis for all the complaining. A lot of people also apparently take Star Trek too seriously because of a certain line Leonard Nimoy as Sentinel Prime said in this film. Guys, I'm like a hardcore Trekkie, and even I don't care! Star Trek is great, but to take it that seriously, like even WAY more seriously than I do is complete bullshit.
So no, I'm not going to sit here and tell you that Transformers Dark of the moon didn't have problems, it did, but in my opinion the faults from ROTF have improved SO much in this movie that any problems can be easily overlooked in my opinion.
Dark of the moon is an enjoyable action film, and to be fair it's not nearly as bad as some overwrought critics have said it is.
Star Trek (2009)
You couldn't ask for a better reboot
I've been having to think about this for quite a while. People have been getting on my case about me thinking this is one of the best Star Trek films in the entire series(It's right up there with Wrath of Khan in my opinion). I've had more than enough time to think about this, and I think the best answer that I can give is that because of the scope of the story, the grand, epic scale and nature and the characters involved, this picture is big. It's almost too big to be a movie.
The science doesn't bother me. The details don't bug me because in my opinion they don't really detract from the story or bring up a way in which the crew could have stopped Nero. Talking of Nero, people have been demanding to know his motivations. I will keep insisting to you until the day I die that sometimes people do stupid, psychotic, evil and massively, mind-blowingly irresponsible things for reasons far beyond us. They do that in the real world too, and it certainly isn't improbable they wouldn't use whatever means at their disposal to reek revenge, no matter how crazy it may seem.
What matters is that there is a threat to every federation planet, and Kirk must not just deal with Spock, but he must come to terms with himself and realize he can't be a selfish jackass anymore, he has to step up and do what is right not for himself but for everyone. It's nice to see after all the conflict Spock and Kirk went through that their legendary friendship is beginning to blossom.
It was nice to have Spock prime there for a reason. His being there wasn't a result of being shoe-horned, but as a result of actual dramatic necessity. Spock Prime is there for a reason, and I honestly don't know if he will or how he will aid the Spock and Kirk of the past, we'll just have to wait and see.
What matters is that the story is big, it's fast-paced, it's never boring, there's always something going on. From the minute Kirk's father charges heroically to save hundreds of lives from Nero as he says goodbye to his wife and newly born child, you're emotionally invested. You know who this little boy is going to grow up to be.
This movie is a game changer. It takes the crew of the great original series and gives them a new lease on life with potentially endless stories that will no doubt thrill and excite us all. I just hope the writers can keep up this frantic pace.
Star Trek: First Contact (1996)
Overrated by a great margin
Star Trek: First Contact is beloved by all kinds of fans... this blows my mind. Here's what bothers me: They turned Picard into a gun-toting psycho who kills his own crew who are turning into the Borg when even he was saved from the Borg. He's not the enlightened captain we know from the series.
Another big problem is nothing makes sense. The Borg go back in time huh? Well why didn't they do that before? What's to stop them from doing it again? Why didn't they go back in time even further? The Borg Queen was a HUGE mistake. She is an antagonist who completely undermines the image and the menace behind the Borg. All the sex stuff between her and Data was just completely wrong and it makes me sick to my stomach to think about this. Why did they have to add so many disgusting sexual innuendos to this movie?! Yes, I'm asking YOU, people who condemn the Transformers movies for having innuendos that are subtle by comparison. I mean You do NOT say "Was it good for you too?" In a STAR TREK MOVIE!!! You do not have somebody say "That is because you haven't been properly stimulated(sexually)". That is wrong! It's disgusting! The Holodeck scene makes no sense(I guess Borg can't adapt to Machine gun fire now?!) Then Picard And Lily wander pointlessly about the ship for a long time, and Picard and all the crew violate the temporal prime directive by telling Cochrane and Lily everything about the future! The characters are wasted. Riker, Worf, Geordi, Crusher are simply along either for the ride or to provide the lamest possible comic relief in the history of sci-fi. They don't even have much of a dramatic purpose! That's another thing... Why did they get Troi drunk? Was THAT supposed to be funny? That's not funny, that's a parody of Star Trek! That's farce! I understand light-hearted humor, that's what The Voyage Home did so well, without overdoing it. This movie, and frankly all the Next Gen movies overdid it on the "humor", and I use that term VERY loosely.
Oh, and the action movie line, Worf actually says "Assimilate this!" and blows up the deflector dish. Okay, that may be okay for a Die Hard movie, but NOT for a Star Trek film! Stupid action movie clichés like dumb ass one-liners have NO business in a Star Trek movie! And here's the kicker... Data fires torpedoes at the Phoenix ship, WHY?! The Phoenix ship will go to warp and the Ahem "Aliens" will pick up their presence and that will cause First contact. Why did Data shoot at the Phoenix? The Phoenix could have been destroyed, easily. I don't care if Data has precision aiming, he still cannot account for all kinds of unforeseen variables! It's kind of sad, because First Contact had potential. Seriously, First contact is boring, it's not big enough for a movie. It's nowhere near as good as the Best of both worlds episodes. The characters are either wasted or completely violated. For more details, please consult the Youtube reviews from the likes of Red Letter Media and Confused Matthew.