Sorry everyone that I'm a bit late to the game on this, my hiatus ended up being a bit longer than I'd anticipated. While there are a few reviews out there talking about D-BOX, ain't no one giving you the truth the way I deliver it (cue evil, maniacal laughter).
D-BOX isn't new anymore. And I'm sure that most cinema enthusiasts/aficionados have already gone ahead and tried it. But for those of you who haven't tried it yet and are considering it, here are some things to consider.
The Price (Cineplex Prices before taxes)
Let's talk about what's important to all of us. In Toronto, here is the range of tickets (I'm not including Cineplex VIP into this post).
Regular Movie Ticket: $13.50
3D Non-AVX Movie Ticket: $16.50
3D AVX Movie Ticket: $18.50
3D D-BOX Movie Ticket: $24.50
It's almost double the price of a regular ticket! Outrageous right? I suppose it depends on who you ask, and what their priorities are. But if you're budget conscious, $24.50 is pretty painful.
The Experience
So the powers that be have decided that D-BOX should take, pretty much the best seats in the house. They're positioned in the centre section of the theatre, and just a few rows down from the back. Down to just above the middle of the room. Why are these seats optimal? The first one is obvious, it's in the middle of the room width-wise. But, they're also the most optimal in terms of viewing angle also. You're not looking down, you're not looking up; you are looking straight from your seat to the screen.
So the video above already shows you the motion sensitive chair and how it rumbles and sways. If you're not prone to motion sickness, it's actually quite fun. For certain films ("Star Trek" and "The Perfect Storm" come to mind), it does enhance the experience of the film. I mean, let's be real here. You probably don't need your seat to rumble around for a movie like "Black Swan".
While I did/do enjoy the D-BOX experience for certain movies, I actually also find the seats to be pretty uncomfortable. It could be because I'm somewhat vertically challenged, but the seats are angled a bit higher at the edge than regular seats and so your feet (well, mine at least) do dangle off a bit. After about 30min into a movie, I find that my legs get fairly uncomfortable. So I spend the rest of the movie shifting my weight from one side to the other, trying to sit one way, then another.
The Options
D-BOX seats are generally found in AVX rooms. So if you don't absolutely need to rattle and roll with what's happening on screen, and still want excellent seats in the house? I say the best bang for buck AVX seats are in the row just in front of the D-BOX seats. You're still in the middle of the room width-wise, and you're still up high enough that your line of sight is still comfortable. There are a couple of added benefits (not including price) to this row also. The arm rests in AVX rooms are adjustable, so you can push it up for a better huggle with your S.O (Significant Other). D-BOX seats , because they move independently, there is some space in between. And because the D-BOX seats also go to and fro, they also provide plenty of leg room. This means that there's almost no chance of some seat kicking douche bag sitting behind you trying to get you to take a whiff of their toe jam.
The Verdict
I tend to choose the alternative that I just mentioned for MOST movies. But, there are certain movies that I don't mind paying the extra bucks for to maximise the viewing experience (the upcoming "Star Wars" movie comes to mind). There is however, actually one more situation where I'll choose a D-BOX seat. AVX tickets for opening weekend for a big blockbuster tends to sell quickly, especially in that centre cluster of seats. D-BOX seats tend to sell a touch slower than the other seats in the house. So when the S.O isn't available and I want to get a good seat close to the show time, there's a chance that there's a D-BOX seat that someone hasn't taken yet.
Bottom line, it's a good choice if you want/need a bit extra to get you immersed into the movie, but it's not entirely necessary.
If y'all are interested in the more detailed technical aspects behind D-BOX, here's a video of their "Motion Code"
Cheers.
Showing posts with label Action. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Action. Show all posts
Friday, 1 December 2017
Monday, 27 November 2017
Movie: Justice League (2017)
Rating: C
If you want to watch this movie, stop reading the reviews (I suppose, that DOES include this one). Not so much because reviews inevitably include spoilers, but reading reviews for this movie actually spoils the movie.
If you don't go in to this movie with any expectations, it's not too bad of a movie. It's entirely watchable. Too many people reviewing this movie include all the issues they had during the production of the movie. I'm just here to talk about what happened on screen.
Sure, there are plot holes, missing bits to this movie, and some spotty CG, but it's still watchable. It's pretty good stylistically, they've done well portraying the characters, and there are some pretty awesome action moments (notice I did not say sequences).
I've always thought that DC does a pretty good job of tackling psychological struggles of its heroes, and Justice League does kind of try to attempt this. The biggest problem with this movie is that the major players in this movie really didn't get enough of a backstory.
I was fine with that with them doing this with Wonder Woman in Batman Vs. Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016) because she was a bit of a mystery to Batman and Superman. I'm also fine with them doing this with The Flash here because his story hasn't really begun and he was more of a bit player this time around.
But Aquaman and Cyborg are pretty big parts of this movie, and there is just a cursory introduction to their characters. You don't feel any attachment to them whatsoever. They feel like they were just dropped into the story.
The DCEU needs to stop rushing to catch up with Marvel, and just do their own thing. They built up each of their major characters before putting them all together for a team up.
If you want to watch this movie, stop reading the reviews (I suppose, that DOES include this one). Not so much because reviews inevitably include spoilers, but reading reviews for this movie actually spoils the movie.
If you don't go in to this movie with any expectations, it's not too bad of a movie. It's entirely watchable. Too many people reviewing this movie include all the issues they had during the production of the movie. I'm just here to talk about what happened on screen.
Sure, there are plot holes, missing bits to this movie, and some spotty CG, but it's still watchable. It's pretty good stylistically, they've done well portraying the characters, and there are some pretty awesome action moments (notice I did not say sequences).
I've always thought that DC does a pretty good job of tackling psychological struggles of its heroes, and Justice League does kind of try to attempt this. The biggest problem with this movie is that the major players in this movie really didn't get enough of a backstory.
I was fine with that with them doing this with Wonder Woman in Batman Vs. Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016) because she was a bit of a mystery to Batman and Superman. I'm also fine with them doing this with The Flash here because his story hasn't really begun and he was more of a bit player this time around.
But Aquaman and Cyborg are pretty big parts of this movie, and there is just a cursory introduction to their characters. You don't feel any attachment to them whatsoever. They feel like they were just dropped into the story.
The DCEU needs to stop rushing to catch up with Marvel, and just do their own thing. They built up each of their major characters before putting them all together for a team up.
Friday, 24 May 2013
Movie: Star Trek - Into Darkness (2013)
Rating: B
Hrmm....Apparently I didn't write about the first installment of this NEW Star Trek franchise. But I've got to say, I much prefer J.J Abrams at the helm of a movie over his contributions on the small screen.
To boldly go....Where plenty of movies have gone before. There really is nothing new in this movie. That being said, who cares?! This movie is fun, it's well paced, and entirely action packed. While you don't have to be a trekkie to enjoy this film, however, after I watched this film, I went and watched the Star Trek movie from the original movie series and realised its correlation. I think that fans of the Star Trek franchise will love the homage it pays to its predecessor. Absolutely brilliant.
While I always love the easter eggs new movies pay to their predecessors, I'm starting to feel that the scripting is starting to be a little much; to a point where some of the bantering is becoming a little repetitive and becoming rather cliche.
That being said, I've got to say, the more I see Simon Pegg, the more I think that he's a frigging genius. haha. Total hilarity.
Cheers.
Hrmm....Apparently I didn't write about the first installment of this NEW Star Trek franchise. But I've got to say, I much prefer J.J Abrams at the helm of a movie over his contributions on the small screen.
To boldly go....Where plenty of movies have gone before. There really is nothing new in this movie. That being said, who cares?! This movie is fun, it's well paced, and entirely action packed. While you don't have to be a trekkie to enjoy this film, however, after I watched this film, I went and watched the Star Trek movie from the original movie series and realised its correlation. I think that fans of the Star Trek franchise will love the homage it pays to its predecessor. Absolutely brilliant.
While I always love the easter eggs new movies pay to their predecessors, I'm starting to feel that the scripting is starting to be a little much; to a point where some of the bantering is becoming a little repetitive and becoming rather cliche.
That being said, I've got to say, the more I see Simon Pegg, the more I think that he's a frigging genius. haha. Total hilarity.
Cheers.
Monday, 25 March 2013
Movie: Olympus Has Fallen (2013)
Rating: C
I'll say this. Antoine Fuqua certainly knows how to create thrills and suspense. Unfortunately, Olympus Has Fallen really feels like a feeble attempt to remake the first Die Hard.
If you're watching this movie, the first thing you need to do is to turn your brain off. The scenario is completely absurd and implausible. Just sit back, and enjoy watching Gerard Butler kick some butt and deliver a couple of zingers. But aside from that, it's another attempt at mediocrity.
If you don't turn your brain off, you'll just find all the reactions of the characters don't make sense. I'd tell you what those absurdities are, but I'd just be telling you the whole movie.
~Cheers.
I'll say this. Antoine Fuqua certainly knows how to create thrills and suspense. Unfortunately, Olympus Has Fallen really feels like a feeble attempt to remake the first Die Hard.
If you're watching this movie, the first thing you need to do is to turn your brain off. The scenario is completely absurd and implausible. Just sit back, and enjoy watching Gerard Butler kick some butt and deliver a couple of zingers. But aside from that, it's another attempt at mediocrity.
If you don't turn your brain off, you'll just find all the reactions of the characters don't make sense. I'd tell you what those absurdities are, but I'd just be telling you the whole movie.
~Cheers.
Monday, 4 February 2013
Movie: Broken City (2013)
Rating: F
Maybe it's what the director intended. Or maybe it was an unintentional byproduct of filming a movie called Broken City. But this film is broken; from its name, right down to well, the entire movie itself.
With a name like Broken City, you'd expect all sorts of things about the city to be broken, you know, like post-Katrina New Orleans. But it wasn't. You had a couple of corrupt people with hidden agendas and a few knives in a few backs. That's hardly a broken city. It's unfortunate, with a star-studded cast, you were expecting...well...more.
All you ended up with, was a film that was really unbalanced, throwing things in there that really didn't need to be there. The relationship Mark Wahlberg's character had with his girlfriend (Natalie Martinez) was entirely unnecessary, a waste of time, and simply a distraction.
And by throwing in twists for the sake of throwing in twists, it just made the entire movie.... unnecessary. It's like a hockey player doing a dipsy-doodle, spin-o-rama and then not even bother shooting the puck. It's called, trying to be cute / clever without ever being smart.
~Cheers.
Maybe it's what the director intended. Or maybe it was an unintentional byproduct of filming a movie called Broken City. But this film is broken; from its name, right down to well, the entire movie itself.
With a name like Broken City, you'd expect all sorts of things about the city to be broken, you know, like post-Katrina New Orleans. But it wasn't. You had a couple of corrupt people with hidden agendas and a few knives in a few backs. That's hardly a broken city. It's unfortunate, with a star-studded cast, you were expecting...well...more.
All you ended up with, was a film that was really unbalanced, throwing things in there that really didn't need to be there. The relationship Mark Wahlberg's character had with his girlfriend (Natalie Martinez) was entirely unnecessary, a waste of time, and simply a distraction.
And by throwing in twists for the sake of throwing in twists, it just made the entire movie.... unnecessary. It's like a hockey player doing a dipsy-doodle, spin-o-rama and then not even bother shooting the puck. It's called, trying to be cute / clever without ever being smart.
~Cheers.
Monday, 14 January 2013
Movie: The Hobbit (2012)
Rating: B-
Almost a decade after the final installment of The Lord Of The Rings was released, they finally came out with the prequel: The Hobbit. Only... It's to be released in three parts.
Three agonising parts. Quite honestly, the pacing of this first installment feels more like a TV mini series. I could totally see where the networks might want to put commercials in. And it didn't help that the movie was filmed in 48 fps. Yes, it reduces motion blur, but it also makes things all together too clear. Many of the shots felt like it was still in pre-production.
The brilliant thing about J.R.R Tolkien's writings is that they film themselves. He has a great storytelling style, and his descriptions of each and every scene is simply awesome. The picture he ends up painting is so vivid, that really, it takes very little imagination to translate it onto the big screen.
Andy Serkis reprises his role as Gollum/Sméagol, and it is quite evident how far technology has come in motion capture. The new Gollum is significantly more realistic than the 2003 version, when the LOTR team breathed new life in the technology.
~Cheers.
Almost a decade after the final installment of The Lord Of The Rings was released, they finally came out with the prequel: The Hobbit. Only... It's to be released in three parts.
Three agonising parts. Quite honestly, the pacing of this first installment feels more like a TV mini series. I could totally see where the networks might want to put commercials in. And it didn't help that the movie was filmed in 48 fps. Yes, it reduces motion blur, but it also makes things all together too clear. Many of the shots felt like it was still in pre-production.
The brilliant thing about J.R.R Tolkien's writings is that they film themselves. He has a great storytelling style, and his descriptions of each and every scene is simply awesome. The picture he ends up painting is so vivid, that really, it takes very little imagination to translate it onto the big screen.
Andy Serkis reprises his role as Gollum/Sméagol, and it is quite evident how far technology has come in motion capture. The new Gollum is significantly more realistic than the 2003 version, when the LOTR team breathed new life in the technology.
~Cheers.
Tuesday, 31 July 2012
Movie: The Dark Knight Rises (2012)
Rating: B+
Probably the most anticipated movie of 2012 also contained the most IMAX footage ever used in a feature film. Sure, plenty of movies, including this year's The Avengers, was converted into IMAX, but director Christopher Nolan actually used IMAX cameras to include over an hour of actual IMAX images for The Dark Knight.
The result is palpable. So if you do get a chance to see the movie in IMAX, it's definitely worth giving yourselves a treat to fully experience the clarity, vividness, and perfection that is IMAX.
But that being said, while I absolutely loved the movie, it really bothers me when there are plot holes. I'm going to try to say this without issuing a spoiler alert. Batman's injuries vs. recovery. Just doesn't add up. Another thing that bothers me is when symbols are overused that it becomes trite. Without giving away too much of the 2h45min movie, was it really necessary to have the ENTIRE national anthem sung? Granted, DC Comics really does cater to a more patriotic crowd, but this was overkill.
I love watching Christopher Nolan's movies and I think he's a great director. But if you watch the first two in this particular Batman trilogy, Gotham is a much different place. Yet, in THIS finale of the trilogy, Gotham City looked decidedly like New York. I just thought that the inconsistency was too great. Of course, did it detract from the movie itself? No. Just me being picky.
And my final problem with the movie. It really might have been a good idea to include subtitles when Bane spoke. And he spoke a lot. With the muffled mask, it was very difficult to understand him at times.
Aside from these things, the finale was everything that we've come to expect of Christopher Nolan's movies. I must say that I really enjoyed some of the character twists that they provided, ie, using the Selena Kyle character...you know, before she was officially the "Catwoman".
~Cheers.
Probably the most anticipated movie of 2012 also contained the most IMAX footage ever used in a feature film. Sure, plenty of movies, including this year's The Avengers, was converted into IMAX, but director Christopher Nolan actually used IMAX cameras to include over an hour of actual IMAX images for The Dark Knight.
The result is palpable. So if you do get a chance to see the movie in IMAX, it's definitely worth giving yourselves a treat to fully experience the clarity, vividness, and perfection that is IMAX.
But that being said, while I absolutely loved the movie, it really bothers me when there are plot holes. I'm going to try to say this without issuing a spoiler alert. Batman's injuries vs. recovery. Just doesn't add up. Another thing that bothers me is when symbols are overused that it becomes trite. Without giving away too much of the 2h45min movie, was it really necessary to have the ENTIRE national anthem sung? Granted, DC Comics really does cater to a more patriotic crowd, but this was overkill.
I love watching Christopher Nolan's movies and I think he's a great director. But if you watch the first two in this particular Batman trilogy, Gotham is a much different place. Yet, in THIS finale of the trilogy, Gotham City looked decidedly like New York. I just thought that the inconsistency was too great. Of course, did it detract from the movie itself? No. Just me being picky.
And my final problem with the movie. It really might have been a good idea to include subtitles when Bane spoke. And he spoke a lot. With the muffled mask, it was very difficult to understand him at times.
Aside from these things, the finale was everything that we've come to expect of Christopher Nolan's movies. I must say that I really enjoyed some of the character twists that they provided, ie, using the Selena Kyle character...you know, before she was officially the "Catwoman".
~Cheers.
Wednesday, 25 July 2012
Movie: Underworld: Awakening (2012)
Rating: C
One thing I really like about flights these days. It's a great opportunity to catch up on movies. Especially movies that you weren't quite sure that you want to spend money on at the cinema. Especially movies that cater to some guilty pleasure. Particularly true, for movies like Underworld: Awakening.
Like the rest of the sequels in this series, it's not a very good example of cinematic brilliance. It's not even an example of cinematic mediocrity. What it is, is just fun to watch.
Fun to watch Kate Beckinsale kick some butt in her skin tight black leather (well, probably faux leather). If you're expecting anything else from this movie or its franchise? You might want to get your head examined. You're delusional.
Granted, she's young. Granted, she's green. And granted, this role doesn't allow for her to fully explore her acting abilities, but the role of Eve, played by India Eisley was fairly lacking. It really felt like they just plucked a girl out of a crowd and put her into the movie. Of course, she only has but a few titles under her belt, so who knows...maaaayyybee she'll grow into it. Maybe. I guess we'll see huh.
~Cheers.
One thing I really like about flights these days. It's a great opportunity to catch up on movies. Especially movies that you weren't quite sure that you want to spend money on at the cinema. Especially movies that cater to some guilty pleasure. Particularly true, for movies like Underworld: Awakening.
Like the rest of the sequels in this series, it's not a very good example of cinematic brilliance. It's not even an example of cinematic mediocrity. What it is, is just fun to watch.
Fun to watch Kate Beckinsale kick some butt in her skin tight black leather (well, probably faux leather). If you're expecting anything else from this movie or its franchise? You might want to get your head examined. You're delusional.
Granted, she's young. Granted, she's green. And granted, this role doesn't allow for her to fully explore her acting abilities, but the role of Eve, played by India Eisley was fairly lacking. It really felt like they just plucked a girl out of a crowd and put her into the movie. Of course, she only has but a few titles under her belt, so who knows...maaaayyybee she'll grow into it. Maybe. I guess we'll see huh.
~Cheers.
Monday, 2 July 2012
Movie: Ted (2012)
Rating: B+
Let's call a spade a spade. Is Ted an artistic masterpiece of biblical proportions? No. It's crass, it's boorish, it's inappropriate; the story line is cliched, and really nothing new. But....it's SUPPOSED to be crass. It's SUPPOSED to be boorish, it's SUPPOSED to be inappropriate. And how do you get around a cliched storyline? Make fun of the storyline itself. The result is some seriously extended inappropriate hilarity.
(The is the red band trailer. View discretion is advised)
The interplay is fantastic and Seth MacFarlane reunites some of his cast members from Family Guy, including Alex Borstein, Mila Kunis, and yes....Patrick Stewart. Look for a tonne of cameo work, which totally makes this movie work. In particular, the scenes with Patrick Warburton. Quite honestly, there isn't a whole lot to say about this movie. If you're looking for laughter and a good time, and don't mind some totally refreshing, politically INcorrect humour, go watch it.
For me, there was an added bonus to this movie. I went to school at Boston University, and I haven't been back in over 10 years. Seeing some familiar streets, neighbourhoods, parks, and in particular the Citgo sign really brought back memories and moments of nostalgia. So you'll have to excuse me if I have a bit of a soft spot for this movie, knowing full well that while the movie runs for about 115min, only about 30min of it was comedic genius and the rest was just tepid drivel.
~Cheers.
Let's call a spade a spade. Is Ted an artistic masterpiece of biblical proportions? No. It's crass, it's boorish, it's inappropriate; the story line is cliched, and really nothing new. But....it's SUPPOSED to be crass. It's SUPPOSED to be boorish, it's SUPPOSED to be inappropriate. And how do you get around a cliched storyline? Make fun of the storyline itself. The result is some seriously extended inappropriate hilarity.
(The is the red band trailer. View discretion is advised)
The interplay is fantastic and Seth MacFarlane reunites some of his cast members from Family Guy, including Alex Borstein, Mila Kunis, and yes....Patrick Stewart. Look for a tonne of cameo work, which totally makes this movie work. In particular, the scenes with Patrick Warburton. Quite honestly, there isn't a whole lot to say about this movie. If you're looking for laughter and a good time, and don't mind some totally refreshing, politically INcorrect humour, go watch it.
For me, there was an added bonus to this movie. I went to school at Boston University, and I haven't been back in over 10 years. Seeing some familiar streets, neighbourhoods, parks, and in particular the Citgo sign really brought back memories and moments of nostalgia. So you'll have to excuse me if I have a bit of a soft spot for this movie, knowing full well that while the movie runs for about 115min, only about 30min of it was comedic genius and the rest was just tepid drivel.
~Cheers.
Wednesday, 23 May 2012
Movie: Battleship (2012)
Rating: C
After seeing sales from the relic line of Transformers, it looks like Hasbro might be wanting to tap that keg again for Battleship. And from the looks of things, they're going to milk it for all it's worth. I mean, yes, they'll make money from the movie, but there's likely going to be some sort of a multiplier effect in terms of merchandising. Battleship was nothing more than a board game; one with very limited variables and variations. Now, not only can they sell the board game, they can sell a video game, boats, action figures, etc etc etc. So who cares if Rihanna can't act a lick?
Seriously. This girl should NOT quit her day job. Given lots of screen time with very limited lines, you'd think that she ought to be able to pull of keeping a stone face. The few lines she had, it felt like she was reading them for the first time. But, I guess everybody's gotta start somewhere. *sigh*.
The pacing and flow of the movie was choppy, haphazard, and full of holes. It's a wonder why Peter Berg gets so many chances to direct such half baked, barely mediocre, vapid movies. Maybe he should just stick with Friday Night Lights. That seems to be the only thing to his credit that deserves any recognition.
That being said, there's enough bangs and booms to keep this movie at least somewhat entertaining, and it certainly doesn't hurt keeping Brooklyn Decker around. And after John Carter, Taylor Kitsch really could have used something to put him back on the right track. I'm just not so sure that Battleship is that something.
Oh. For those of you so inclined, it wouldn't be such a bad idea to stick around after the credits. Heck, if you stayed after The Avengers, you might as well stick around for this one too right? haha.
Cheers.
After seeing sales from the relic line of Transformers, it looks like Hasbro might be wanting to tap that keg again for Battleship. And from the looks of things, they're going to milk it for all it's worth. I mean, yes, they'll make money from the movie, but there's likely going to be some sort of a multiplier effect in terms of merchandising. Battleship was nothing more than a board game; one with very limited variables and variations. Now, not only can they sell the board game, they can sell a video game, boats, action figures, etc etc etc. So who cares if Rihanna can't act a lick?
Seriously. This girl should NOT quit her day job. Given lots of screen time with very limited lines, you'd think that she ought to be able to pull of keeping a stone face. The few lines she had, it felt like she was reading them for the first time. But, I guess everybody's gotta start somewhere. *sigh*.
The pacing and flow of the movie was choppy, haphazard, and full of holes. It's a wonder why Peter Berg gets so many chances to direct such half baked, barely mediocre, vapid movies. Maybe he should just stick with Friday Night Lights. That seems to be the only thing to his credit that deserves any recognition.
That being said, there's enough bangs and booms to keep this movie at least somewhat entertaining, and it certainly doesn't hurt keeping Brooklyn Decker around. And after John Carter, Taylor Kitsch really could have used something to put him back on the right track. I'm just not so sure that Battleship is that something.
Oh. For those of you so inclined, it wouldn't be such a bad idea to stick around after the credits. Heck, if you stayed after The Avengers, you might as well stick around for this one too right? haha.
Cheers.
Monday, 14 May 2012
Movie: Safe (2012)
Rating: C-
There's really only one reason to watch any Jason Statham movie: To watch Jason Statham beat people up. It's your own fault if you expect anything more from any of his movies. If you're able to get anything more from his movies, you should consider yourself lucky. Haha.
Safe is no different. Aside from a few one liners and some fun fight scenes, Safe suffers from an over zealous plot-line that is so poorly executed that no amount of creative fighting could compensate. Why they decided to incorporate 2 foreign speaking gangs to be pitted against each other is entirely beyond me. This is an action movie. It really shouldn't have THAT many scenes requiring subtitles. They could have made this movie with a Jamaican gang and an Irish gang, or a Mexican gang and an Italian gang. Any two gangs would have worked.
And in this day and age, you'd think that there would be a few more actors they could have found that ACTUALLY spoke Chinese. Listening to Reggie Lee attempt to to act in Chinese when he can barely act in English was enough to make me throw up a little inside. And while James Hong's performance was slightly more convincing, they need to stop making him the token old Chinese guy in every other movie with an Asian in it.
Even putting aside the poor choice of language, the story line was made overly complicated and executed with such ham-fistedness, that there really was very little cohesion over the hour and a half movie. And finally. Jason Statham is an athlete with a black belt. Not an actor. Stop trying to make him act. Making him the weepy, soft-on-the-inside-with-a-hard-exterior, 'this isn't what i wanted' hero. Just let him fight already!
~Cheers.
There's really only one reason to watch any Jason Statham movie: To watch Jason Statham beat people up. It's your own fault if you expect anything more from any of his movies. If you're able to get anything more from his movies, you should consider yourself lucky. Haha.
Safe is no different. Aside from a few one liners and some fun fight scenes, Safe suffers from an over zealous plot-line that is so poorly executed that no amount of creative fighting could compensate. Why they decided to incorporate 2 foreign speaking gangs to be pitted against each other is entirely beyond me. This is an action movie. It really shouldn't have THAT many scenes requiring subtitles. They could have made this movie with a Jamaican gang and an Irish gang, or a Mexican gang and an Italian gang. Any two gangs would have worked.
And in this day and age, you'd think that there would be a few more actors they could have found that ACTUALLY spoke Chinese. Listening to Reggie Lee attempt to to act in Chinese when he can barely act in English was enough to make me throw up a little inside. And while James Hong's performance was slightly more convincing, they need to stop making him the token old Chinese guy in every other movie with an Asian in it.
Even putting aside the poor choice of language, the story line was made overly complicated and executed with such ham-fistedness, that there really was very little cohesion over the hour and a half movie. And finally. Jason Statham is an athlete with a black belt. Not an actor. Stop trying to make him act. Making him the weepy, soft-on-the-inside-with-a-hard-exterior, 'this isn't what i wanted' hero. Just let him fight already!
~Cheers.
Sunday, 6 May 2012
Movie: Marvel's The Avengers (2012)
Rating: A+
Unleash the power of the (comic book) geek! Seriously, if this popcorn movie doesn't unleash your inner geek, nothing will. And while the Hulk isn't a man of many words, he totally steals the show.
I was a little worried that this movie was going to be a mish mash of heroes thrown together into a half baked ensemble movie. But man was I pleasantly surprised. The action was fantastic. The visuals were fantastic. And the interaction and chemistry between the characters was absolutely magnificent. Yes, this is a comic book movie, and yes it's larger than life, and absolutely yes, this is fantasy, but for 2 hours and 22 minutes, this was YOUR world. It sucked you in, spat you out, and made you want more. It was action packed, it was fun, and it will rock your world.
The only negative thing that I can say about this movie is that while Robert Downey Jr., and Chris Evans are probably the supposed to be the main characters of this movie, it was Mark Ruffalo as The Hulk that totally stole the show. And really, the show doesn't really start until The Hulk covers the screen...Literally...the whole screen. And after that, the rest of the movie is just an action packed, mixed in with great dialogue and interaction, coupled with copious amounts of total hilarity.
As with each of the introductory movies over the past four years, there IS something to see at the end of the credits. It.....uh....might not....uh....be ....hrmmm....what you were expecting tho. hahaha =)~
~Cheers.
Unleash the power of the (comic book) geek! Seriously, if this popcorn movie doesn't unleash your inner geek, nothing will. And while the Hulk isn't a man of many words, he totally steals the show.
I was a little worried that this movie was going to be a mish mash of heroes thrown together into a half baked ensemble movie. But man was I pleasantly surprised. The action was fantastic. The visuals were fantastic. And the interaction and chemistry between the characters was absolutely magnificent. Yes, this is a comic book movie, and yes it's larger than life, and absolutely yes, this is fantasy, but for 2 hours and 22 minutes, this was YOUR world. It sucked you in, spat you out, and made you want more. It was action packed, it was fun, and it will rock your world.
The only negative thing that I can say about this movie is that while Robert Downey Jr., and Chris Evans are probably the supposed to be the main characters of this movie, it was Mark Ruffalo as The Hulk that totally stole the show. And really, the show doesn't really start until The Hulk covers the screen...Literally...the whole screen. And after that, the rest of the movie is just an action packed, mixed in with great dialogue and interaction, coupled with copious amounts of total hilarity.
As with each of the introductory movies over the past four years, there IS something to see at the end of the credits. It.....uh....might not....uh....be ....hrmmm....what you were expecting tho. hahaha =)~
~Cheers.
Monday, 16 April 2012
Movie: Lockout (2012)
Rating: D
I have a big love/hate relationship with Luc Besson movies. I love the premise, hate the execution, and love to rip on them afterwards. Lockout was no different. If you've read some of my critiques, you'll know how much I hate holes in movies. This movie just had hole after hole after hole, with poor lighting, editing, and I do believe, that somewhere in the beginning sequence, they forgot the put the finishing touches on some Special Effects (CGI).
It's almost like Mr. Besson is doing charity work. He comes up with ideas, writes the initial screenplay, then offloads it to some poor up and coming director salivating at the opportunity at having Luc Besson in his credits at the end of the movie. Lockout seems to be yet another example. Both James Mather and Stephen St. Leger just seem overwhelmed with directing this movie.
Looks like Guy Pearce has been hitting the gym and looks great as a grisly framed agent on a one man rescue mission of the president's daughter played by Maggie Grace. Their relationship is what you would expect between a wily veteran and a sassy, but doe eyed beauty, and while a romance is somewhat inevitable in this kind of movie, how it blossoms is entirely contrived and there is no chemistry whatsoever. Quite honestly, the only person that stood out in this entire movie is Joseph Gilgun who plays the crazed brother of the main villain in the movie.
~Cheers.
I have a big love/hate relationship with Luc Besson movies. I love the premise, hate the execution, and love to rip on them afterwards. Lockout was no different. If you've read some of my critiques, you'll know how much I hate holes in movies. This movie just had hole after hole after hole, with poor lighting, editing, and I do believe, that somewhere in the beginning sequence, they forgot the put the finishing touches on some Special Effects (CGI).
It's almost like Mr. Besson is doing charity work. He comes up with ideas, writes the initial screenplay, then offloads it to some poor up and coming director salivating at the opportunity at having Luc Besson in his credits at the end of the movie. Lockout seems to be yet another example. Both James Mather and Stephen St. Leger just seem overwhelmed with directing this movie.
Looks like Guy Pearce has been hitting the gym and looks great as a grisly framed agent on a one man rescue mission of the president's daughter played by Maggie Grace. Their relationship is what you would expect between a wily veteran and a sassy, but doe eyed beauty, and while a romance is somewhat inevitable in this kind of movie, how it blossoms is entirely contrived and there is no chemistry whatsoever. Quite honestly, the only person that stood out in this entire movie is Joseph Gilgun who plays the crazed brother of the main villain in the movie.
~Cheers.
Wednesday, 6 July 2011
Movie: Resident Evil - Apocalypse (2004)
Rating: C
A perfectly written, well acted, brilliantly directed film this is not. But I love it! It's a movie that thanks the fans of the game by adding lots of easter eggs and paying homage to the game, not by staying true to the game's storyline, but taking enough of the game's aspects, and spinning out a different story altogether. And most importantly, not taking itself too seriously.
Was it a brilliant cinematic feature? Absolutely not. And it's not supposed to be. It's a popcorn movie through and through with hot girls in great outfits kicking zombie ass. Normally, I'm bothered by holes in movies, but in this case, who cares! I mean seriously. Why do zombie dogs all look like demonised dobermans? What, Chihuahuas can't be infected too? And what about cats? Bunny rabbits? Chickens? Mosquitoes? Probably would have been a better idea to have left out the fluffies. But who cares. It was fun to watch.
Milla Jovovich returns to lead the charge against the undead as Alice. One of the best things in the entire series is Alice's wardrobe. Bad ass, sexy, and totally awesome. Yes, I'm sure I sound like a total pimply faced teenaged gamer drooling over this character, but that's part of the appeal of this series. Again, don't take it seriously. Enjoy the physically impossible stunts Alice and her crew pull off. Oh, and I have no idea who this Sienna Guillory is, she can't act a lick, and I TOTALLY wish that they would have just kept her natural accent, but she looked spot on as Jill Valentine, and that's again, awesome.
As long as they keep pumping this series out, I'm likely going to keep buyin' the popcorn.
~Cheers.
A perfectly written, well acted, brilliantly directed film this is not. But I love it! It's a movie that thanks the fans of the game by adding lots of easter eggs and paying homage to the game, not by staying true to the game's storyline, but taking enough of the game's aspects, and spinning out a different story altogether. And most importantly, not taking itself too seriously.
Was it a brilliant cinematic feature? Absolutely not. And it's not supposed to be. It's a popcorn movie through and through with hot girls in great outfits kicking zombie ass. Normally, I'm bothered by holes in movies, but in this case, who cares! I mean seriously. Why do zombie dogs all look like demonised dobermans? What, Chihuahuas can't be infected too? And what about cats? Bunny rabbits? Chickens? Mosquitoes? Probably would have been a better idea to have left out the fluffies. But who cares. It was fun to watch.
Milla Jovovich returns to lead the charge against the undead as Alice. One of the best things in the entire series is Alice's wardrobe. Bad ass, sexy, and totally awesome. Yes, I'm sure I sound like a total pimply faced teenaged gamer drooling over this character, but that's part of the appeal of this series. Again, don't take it seriously. Enjoy the physically impossible stunts Alice and her crew pull off. Oh, and I have no idea who this Sienna Guillory is, she can't act a lick, and I TOTALLY wish that they would have just kept her natural accent, but she looked spot on as Jill Valentine, and that's again, awesome.
As long as they keep pumping this series out, I'm likely going to keep buyin' the popcorn.
~Cheers.
Thursday, 30 June 2011
Movie: I Am Number Four (2011)
Rating: C-
While this movie makes much more sense than DJ Caruso's Eagle Eye, it is simply too lightweight and fluffy to be taken seriously. Of course, this movie is also catering to the Twilight demographic, you know, the demographic that enjoys watching shirtless pretty boys. Thankfully, there were no shirtless scenes. Haha.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Why the heck does Timothy Olyphant think that grinding his teeth when he talks makes him look tough? And who is this Alex Pettyfer kid and why does he think that he can act? While the first 15 minutes of the movie were decent, and the last 20 minutes of the movie was entertaining enough, there is about an hour and a half or so of this movie that is pure and utter fluff. The entire middle section of the movie was a snoozefest, focusing on teenage puppy love and high school drama that, by the way, disappeared in the blink of an eye.
And I'd say, that without Teresa Palmer, I probably would have given this movie a D. I don't care that she was only in about 15minutes of the movie, but she was hot. Which means, I'm torn about whether or not I want to watch the sequel, which it hints at in the special edition. HAHA.
~Cheers.
While this movie makes much more sense than DJ Caruso's Eagle Eye, it is simply too lightweight and fluffy to be taken seriously. Of course, this movie is also catering to the Twilight demographic, you know, the demographic that enjoys watching shirtless pretty boys. Thankfully, there were no shirtless scenes. Haha.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Why the heck does Timothy Olyphant think that grinding his teeth when he talks makes him look tough? And who is this Alex Pettyfer kid and why does he think that he can act? While the first 15 minutes of the movie were decent, and the last 20 minutes of the movie was entertaining enough, there is about an hour and a half or so of this movie that is pure and utter fluff. The entire middle section of the movie was a snoozefest, focusing on teenage puppy love and high school drama that, by the way, disappeared in the blink of an eye.
And I'd say, that without Teresa Palmer, I probably would have given this movie a D. I don't care that she was only in about 15minutes of the movie, but she was hot. Which means, I'm torn about whether or not I want to watch the sequel, which it hints at in the special edition. HAHA.
~Cheers.
Wednesday, 29 June 2011
Game: Green Lantern - Rise of the Manhunters (2011)
Genre: 3rd Person Action
Game Play: 3 / 5
Graphics: 3.5 / 5
Storyline: 3.5 / 5
Re-Playability: 3 / 5
Overall: 3 / 5
Quite honestly, I enjoyed it. I like playing games with heavy story support. And quite frankly, I found the story more compelling than the Green Lantern movie.
I played the PS3 version of the game. After games like Metal Gear Solid 4, Uncharted, and Assassin's Creed, I've come to expect some spectacular graphics. Unfortunately, Rise of the Manhunters came just a little short. And I found the entire game to be such. It just came up a little bit short. It was ok, entertaining enough, but there wasn't anything great about it.
You're either running through a pretty linear plane, or flying through the air. When you're in the air, so long as you keep moving, you pretty much can't die, and you'll make it through the section. On the ground, you get to use your ring. There are some super moves that you can use the ring for, called "Constructs". Constructs are available for purchase with experience points. There are enough constructs to buy to play the game MAYBE 2x. But I was really hoping for a whole lot more. There are some puzzles in the game, but none that gave you too much grief.
I did however, encounter a couple of glitches that I wasn't too pleased about. After unlocking one of the doors, it was still locked. I ended up going online to check the walkthrough and found no additional locks for the door. I was finally able to get through it after turning the machine completely off and then back on. Really, it was a bit of a nuisance. I'm not sure if it was just the disc I had that was missing this information, or if it's missing on the PS3 system. There is one piece of key information that, again, I found on the walkthrough that wasn't part of the dialogue in my game. Once I heard that, I was able to get through the level. But it wasn't available on my game at all.
Aside from a few nuisances, the game isn't horrible. Granted, Green Lantern was one of my favourites growing up, so that might have something to do with it. Oh, if you want to beat the game REALLY easily? Have Player 2 jump in. Just to stand there. The AI's for some reason enjoy beating up the decoy more than beating up on you.
~Cheers.
I'm glad that the storyline was separate from the movie tho.
Game Play: 3 / 5
Graphics: 3.5 / 5
Storyline: 3.5 / 5
Re-Playability: 3 / 5
Overall: 3 / 5
Quite honestly, I enjoyed it. I like playing games with heavy story support. And quite frankly, I found the story more compelling than the Green Lantern movie.
I played the PS3 version of the game. After games like Metal Gear Solid 4, Uncharted, and Assassin's Creed, I've come to expect some spectacular graphics. Unfortunately, Rise of the Manhunters came just a little short. And I found the entire game to be such. It just came up a little bit short. It was ok, entertaining enough, but there wasn't anything great about it.
You're either running through a pretty linear plane, or flying through the air. When you're in the air, so long as you keep moving, you pretty much can't die, and you'll make it through the section. On the ground, you get to use your ring. There are some super moves that you can use the ring for, called "Constructs". Constructs are available for purchase with experience points. There are enough constructs to buy to play the game MAYBE 2x. But I was really hoping for a whole lot more. There are some puzzles in the game, but none that gave you too much grief.
I did however, encounter a couple of glitches that I wasn't too pleased about. After unlocking one of the doors, it was still locked. I ended up going online to check the walkthrough and found no additional locks for the door. I was finally able to get through it after turning the machine completely off and then back on. Really, it was a bit of a nuisance. I'm not sure if it was just the disc I had that was missing this information, or if it's missing on the PS3 system. There is one piece of key information that, again, I found on the walkthrough that wasn't part of the dialogue in my game. Once I heard that, I was able to get through the level. But it wasn't available on my game at all.
Aside from a few nuisances, the game isn't horrible. Granted, Green Lantern was one of my favourites growing up, so that might have something to do with it. Oh, if you want to beat the game REALLY easily? Have Player 2 jump in. Just to stand there. The AI's for some reason enjoy beating up the decoy more than beating up on you.
~Cheers.
I'm glad that the storyline was separate from the movie tho.
Saturday, 18 June 2011
Movie: Green Lantern (2011)
Rating: C+
Seriously, I'm getting a little tired of movies meandering in mediocrity this year. I've yet to see a single film this year that's blown me away. 2010 was a Smörgåsbord of absolutely brilliant films. Green Lantern, continues this trend of pedestrian product.
Green Lantern is JUST funny enough, JUST presentable enough, JUST entertaining enough, JUST...well...I think you know what I'm getting at. It's a good thing they cast Ryan Reynolds in the lead role, otherwise, I fear this movie would have just fallen flat. I mean, just when I was starting to think that Blake Lively could act (See The Town), she goes back gives a performance that is JUST noticeable enough.
As with X-Men: First Class, and Thor earlier this year, the introduction of the movie takes too long. They don't really have much of a choice, they're trying to introduce everybody and trying to set up the situation, but the movie is (thankfully) only 105 minutes long, but the introduction is unfortunately, too long, too tedious, and too tiresome. It does seem however, that there will be a sequel. If that's the case, I think that they will do a better job of it all. Less flying back and forth between planets and less trying to figure out who I am moments.
To summarise, it's JUST watchable enough.
Just a few more personal thoughts after the Jump....
Seriously, I'm getting a little tired of movies meandering in mediocrity this year. I've yet to see a single film this year that's blown me away. 2010 was a Smörgåsbord of absolutely brilliant films. Green Lantern, continues this trend of pedestrian product.
Green Lantern is JUST funny enough, JUST presentable enough, JUST entertaining enough, JUST...well...I think you know what I'm getting at. It's a good thing they cast Ryan Reynolds in the lead role, otherwise, I fear this movie would have just fallen flat. I mean, just when I was starting to think that Blake Lively could act (See The Town), she goes back gives a performance that is JUST noticeable enough.
As with X-Men: First Class, and Thor earlier this year, the introduction of the movie takes too long. They don't really have much of a choice, they're trying to introduce everybody and trying to set up the situation, but the movie is (thankfully) only 105 minutes long, but the introduction is unfortunately, too long, too tedious, and too tiresome. It does seem however, that there will be a sequel. If that's the case, I think that they will do a better job of it all. Less flying back and forth between planets and less trying to figure out who I am moments.
To summarise, it's JUST watchable enough.
Just a few more personal thoughts after the Jump....
Friday, 17 June 2011
Movie: Kung Fu Panda 2 (2011)
Rating: A-
Too many sequels are money mongering excuses to build a franchise, that just regurgitate the same story in a different setting (ie, The Hangover Part 2). Kung Fu Panda 2 is among the select few sequels that might actually be better than its first installment.
The story, while nothing new, is compelling enough to be retold. The jokes actually have some thought put in to them and fitting for all ages. The star studded voice cast did an admirable job.While I would have liked to have seen the supporting cast be more involved, the story would have been far too complex to properly use ALL of them.
I loved the artwork when they were talking about the past, in particular, Po's little stuffed toy. Very adorable. It's great to see them use a different art style to differentiate what is now and what was THEN.
Is it twice the awesomeness as advertised? Yes it is!
Too many sequels are money mongering excuses to build a franchise, that just regurgitate the same story in a different setting (ie, The Hangover Part 2). Kung Fu Panda 2 is among the select few sequels that might actually be better than its first installment.
The story, while nothing new, is compelling enough to be retold. The jokes actually have some thought put in to them and fitting for all ages. The star studded voice cast did an admirable job.While I would have liked to have seen the supporting cast be more involved, the story would have been far too complex to properly use ALL of them.
I loved the artwork when they were talking about the past, in particular, Po's little stuffed toy. Very adorable. It's great to see them use a different art style to differentiate what is now and what was THEN.
Is it twice the awesomeness as advertised? Yes it is!
Monday, 13 June 2011
Movie: Super 8 (2011)
Rating: B
From the director that brought you Alias, Lost, and Fringe; the director that totally, and single-handedly revitalised the Star Trek franchise, J.J. Abrams brings mystery, suspense, and sublime terror to Super 8.
The younger sister best known for playing the younger version of her older sister, I was first impressed with Elle Fanning in Phoebe in Wonderland. And again, she totally shines in this movie. Any scene that she's in, you simply could not keep your eyes off of her.
The story line was too ambitious. And sometimes I think that's what happens when you're used to directing TV. There are episodes in a TV series, and generally you can space it out in 20 hours of broadcast material. In a movie, you have to shrink all that in to 2 hours. And by trying to cram so much into a 2 hour film, you end up with holes and unanswered questions that could have been avoided if they had simply not tried to do so much.
So while there are obvious holes in this movie, Abrams brings you back to the rural innocence of 1979, and taking a page out of Spielberg's ET in a film that makes you care about the characters while continuously building up the suspense around the cargo from the train wreck. Some call it suspension of disbelief, but I think in this case, it's more abandonment of logic. That being said, the kids were definitely the saving grace of this movie. And despite these flaws, Super 8 is still one of the best movies released this year so far.
~Cheers.
From the director that brought you Alias, Lost, and Fringe; the director that totally, and single-handedly revitalised the Star Trek franchise, J.J. Abrams brings mystery, suspense, and sublime terror to Super 8.
The younger sister best known for playing the younger version of her older sister, I was first impressed with Elle Fanning in Phoebe in Wonderland. And again, she totally shines in this movie. Any scene that she's in, you simply could not keep your eyes off of her.
The story line was too ambitious. And sometimes I think that's what happens when you're used to directing TV. There are episodes in a TV series, and generally you can space it out in 20 hours of broadcast material. In a movie, you have to shrink all that in to 2 hours. And by trying to cram so much into a 2 hour film, you end up with holes and unanswered questions that could have been avoided if they had simply not tried to do so much.
So while there are obvious holes in this movie, Abrams brings you back to the rural innocence of 1979, and taking a page out of Spielberg's ET in a film that makes you care about the characters while continuously building up the suspense around the cargo from the train wreck. Some call it suspension of disbelief, but I think in this case, it's more abandonment of logic. That being said, the kids were definitely the saving grace of this movie. And despite these flaws, Super 8 is still one of the best movies released this year so far.
~Cheers.
Saturday, 4 June 2011
Movie: X-Men: First Class (2011)
Rating: B
After a couple of abhorrent, abominable, atrocious, and absolutely appalling sequels following a fairly inspired X-Men in 2000, X-Men: First Class is a much appreciated reboot...or pre-boot(?)...that's ambitious, smart, and surprisingly entertaining.
Kevin Bacon? Really?! I can't remember the last memorable role that he was in. Well...Footloose maybe? Haha. And yet, he seems to keep popping up everywhere. OK. Seriously. This movie is really about how Professor Xavier's relationship with Magneto. For the fans out there of the comic series, this prequel really doesn't follow the same story lines. That being said, it more than adequately addresses the beginnings of their relationship, their bond, and their struggles.
Using snippets of actual history, including actual footage of President Kennedy, X-Men: First Class does enough with actual events to make this movie pretty real. But one thing totally threw me off. The appearance of Brendan Fehr. No lines, not even a name! In the credits, they name him "Communications Officer". I tried looking it up, but I haven't been able to find any answers as to the reason he's nothing more than an extra in this film.
That being said, the film is great. It takes a little while to get started, and it does have a couple of slow spots, but other than that, it is fairly well thought out. There are also some brilliantly placed cameos and hints about the origins of some future X-Men characters.
*Ed.Note: There isn't anything to stay for after the credits. Forgot to include that.
~Cheers.
After a couple of abhorrent, abominable, atrocious, and absolutely appalling sequels following a fairly inspired X-Men in 2000, X-Men: First Class is a much appreciated reboot...or pre-boot(?)...that's ambitious, smart, and surprisingly entertaining.
Kevin Bacon? Really?! I can't remember the last memorable role that he was in. Well...Footloose maybe? Haha. And yet, he seems to keep popping up everywhere. OK. Seriously. This movie is really about how Professor Xavier's relationship with Magneto. For the fans out there of the comic series, this prequel really doesn't follow the same story lines. That being said, it more than adequately addresses the beginnings of their relationship, their bond, and their struggles.
Using snippets of actual history, including actual footage of President Kennedy, X-Men: First Class does enough with actual events to make this movie pretty real. But one thing totally threw me off. The appearance of Brendan Fehr. No lines, not even a name! In the credits, they name him "Communications Officer". I tried looking it up, but I haven't been able to find any answers as to the reason he's nothing more than an extra in this film.
That being said, the film is great. It takes a little while to get started, and it does have a couple of slow spots, but other than that, it is fairly well thought out. There are also some brilliantly placed cameos and hints about the origins of some future X-Men characters.
*Ed.Note: There isn't anything to stay for after the credits. Forgot to include that.
~Cheers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
