Rating: D
The biggest problem I had with Part II in what's now the Wolfpack Trilogy was that it was a lazy derivative of the first installment. So I was pleasantly surprised when the movie unfolded and was apparent that this last installment would not be yet another derivative of that first flick.
That being said.... I really don't believe Todd Phillips pulled it off. It was supposed to be an epic finale. I suppose that that was the direction it was headed towards, but it never seemed to actually get there. And that's really the best way of describing this movie. It's neither here nor there. It's not funny enough to be a comedy and it's entirely not epic enough to even be in the vicinity of being epic.
And I know that this last bit is also neither here nor there, but I entirely didn't see enough of Jamie Chung. Haha.
Cheers.
Showing posts with label Sequel. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sequel. Show all posts
Thursday, 30 May 2013
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.
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, 18 June 2012
Movie: Men in Black III (2012)
Rating: B
Most sequels come out a couple of years after the previous on. But the first sequel to Men in Black (MIIB) was so bad that even after watching the preview again, I can't remember what it was about. It was so bad, that I almost didn't watch this rendition. It was so bad, that I think majority (myself included) of people who have critiqued this movie have pretty much given it a free pass. Men in Black III was finally produced and released 12 years after MIIB.
Thankfully, Men in Black III delivers as a serviceable follow up. Will Smith reprises his role as J, the smart alec MIB agent. And Tommy Lee Jo--- well... Josh Brolin playing the role of (young) Agent K. And I have to say, Brolin was amazing. At no point did I think that Brolin was Brolin. Totally believable as the younger version of Agent K.
The humour's a little different, and perhaps that was in part because the bulk of the movie was placed in 1969. The movie's a bit more mature, seemingly catering to an older audience, which makes sense, since younger audiences probably wouldn't connect with the 60s anyway.
It's not QUITE as silly as its predecessor, but still funny nevertheless. The interplay between Brolin and Smith is really, almost as good as it was between Smith and Jones in the original.
~Cheers.
Most sequels come out a couple of years after the previous on. But the first sequel to Men in Black (MIIB) was so bad that even after watching the preview again, I can't remember what it was about. It was so bad, that I almost didn't watch this rendition. It was so bad, that I think majority (myself included) of people who have critiqued this movie have pretty much given it a free pass. Men in Black III was finally produced and released 12 years after MIIB.
Thankfully, Men in Black III delivers as a serviceable follow up. Will Smith reprises his role as J, the smart alec MIB agent. And Tommy Lee Jo--- well... Josh Brolin playing the role of (young) Agent K. And I have to say, Brolin was amazing. At no point did I think that Brolin was Brolin. Totally believable as the younger version of Agent K.
The humour's a little different, and perhaps that was in part because the bulk of the movie was placed in 1969. The movie's a bit more mature, seemingly catering to an older audience, which makes sense, since younger audiences probably wouldn't connect with the 60s anyway.
It's not QUITE as silly as its predecessor, but still funny nevertheless. The interplay between Brolin and Smith is really, almost as good as it was between Smith and Jones in the original.
~Cheers.
Monday, 11 June 2012
Movie: Prometheus (2012)
Rating: B-
The prequel that isn't a prequel that really is a prequel to Alien. If you're watching this movie as a fan of the 1979 movie with Sigourney Weaver and looking for answers, I'm afraid you're going to be sorely disappointed. The movie's screenplay is co-written by Damon Lindelof, one of the writers/creators of the hit TV series, Lost. So before you even step in to the cinema, you should be prepared to come out with more questions than answers.
There are certainly many Easter Eggs that pay homage to the 1979 film, but to call this an official prequel is a little bit of a misnomer. What it is, is the introduction for a new series based upon the Alien creature. The curious thing is, the way that this story is written, the Alien creature doesn't even have to be involved as this particular story moves forward, which makes it pretty interesting.
The cinematography and set design in Prometheus was astounding; as was the performance of Michael Fassbender. The story moves along with thrills and scares and all the things you find in a Sci-Fi Thriller/Horror film. But Prometheus tries too hard to do too much which just simply leaves too many holes for me to give it a better grade. Without including spoilers to this movie, the trials and tribulations of Noomi Rapace's character is so far fetched that it was no longer believable.
While I could point out all the plot holes and things that really don't make a lot of sense, I would be giving too much away. But given all the issues with this movie, why is it still a B-? There's enough there to give you a thrill ride. There are enough questions left unanswered for there to be a viable sequel. And there is certainly enough there to make you squirm in your seats and make you wonder if space exploration might not be such a great idea.
Casual fans of the movie might not want to stay until the end of the credits, but for y'all die hard fans, there is something there that you might want to stick around for. But don't blame me if you do. haha.
Here's an interesting TED talk video related to the movie that's rather interesting:
~Cheers.
The prequel that isn't a prequel that really is a prequel to Alien. If you're watching this movie as a fan of the 1979 movie with Sigourney Weaver and looking for answers, I'm afraid you're going to be sorely disappointed. The movie's screenplay is co-written by Damon Lindelof, one of the writers/creators of the hit TV series, Lost. So before you even step in to the cinema, you should be prepared to come out with more questions than answers.
There are certainly many Easter Eggs that pay homage to the 1979 film, but to call this an official prequel is a little bit of a misnomer. What it is, is the introduction for a new series based upon the Alien creature. The curious thing is, the way that this story is written, the Alien creature doesn't even have to be involved as this particular story moves forward, which makes it pretty interesting.
The cinematography and set design in Prometheus was astounding; as was the performance of Michael Fassbender. The story moves along with thrills and scares and all the things you find in a Sci-Fi Thriller/Horror film. But Prometheus tries too hard to do too much which just simply leaves too many holes for me to give it a better grade. Without including spoilers to this movie, the trials and tribulations of Noomi Rapace's character is so far fetched that it was no longer believable.
While I could point out all the plot holes and things that really don't make a lot of sense, I would be giving too much away. But given all the issues with this movie, why is it still a B-? There's enough there to give you a thrill ride. There are enough questions left unanswered for there to be a viable sequel. And there is certainly enough there to make you squirm in your seats and make you wonder if space exploration might not be such a great idea.
Casual fans of the movie might not want to stay until the end of the credits, but for y'all die hard fans, there is something there that you might want to stick around for. But don't blame me if you do. haha.
Here's an interesting TED talk video related to the movie that's rather interesting:
~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.
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!
Tuesday, 7 June 2011
Movie: The Hangover Part II (2011)
Rating: C
Talking with some friends after watching the movie, I dropped the score for The Hangover Part II from a B-, down to a C. While it was mildly entertaining, and it certainly had its moments of hilarity, from what they told me of the first one, this sequel is simply a lazy derivative of the first movie. If I were in to that, I'd probably go read myself a few more John Grisham novels (or watch the movies).
I just don't get Zach Galifianakis. I don't understand why anyone thinks he's funny and I don't understand why he's famous. It's like watching Jar Jar Binks but with different names. Yes, I do find him THAT annoying. Thankfully, this movie has Jamie Chung (she can be my ChiChi anyday...HAHAHA). There really wasn't a reason to bring her up, she's just cute enough to deserve a nod. =)~
The first rendition of The Hangover (2009) was original and innovative in concept; turning an alcohol imbibing, drug inducing hangover that forces the members of "The Wolfpack" to re-trace their steps to figure out what happened. But to follow the same formula all over again, that's just lazy. And even though I haven't watched the first one, The Hangover Part II was only mildly entertaining.
Set in Bangkok, The Hangover Part II seems more of a comedy noire than a comedy. While it has its moments, I found most of the jokes to be low brow, slapstick humour that simply plays on the stereotypes of Thailand. And while some of the footage was quite beautiful, it's pretty hard to mess up the naturally beautiful scenes of the country.
But how do you not watch a movie that features a smoking monkey?
~Cheers.
Talking with some friends after watching the movie, I dropped the score for The Hangover Part II from a B-, down to a C. While it was mildly entertaining, and it certainly had its moments of hilarity, from what they told me of the first one, this sequel is simply a lazy derivative of the first movie. If I were in to that, I'd probably go read myself a few more John Grisham novels (or watch the movies).
I just don't get Zach Galifianakis. I don't understand why anyone thinks he's funny and I don't understand why he's famous. It's like watching Jar Jar Binks but with different names. Yes, I do find him THAT annoying. Thankfully, this movie has Jamie Chung (she can be my ChiChi anyday...HAHAHA). There really wasn't a reason to bring her up, she's just cute enough to deserve a nod. =)~
The first rendition of The Hangover (2009) was original and innovative in concept; turning an alcohol imbibing, drug inducing hangover that forces the members of "The Wolfpack" to re-trace their steps to figure out what happened. But to follow the same formula all over again, that's just lazy. And even though I haven't watched the first one, The Hangover Part II was only mildly entertaining.
Set in Bangkok, The Hangover Part II seems more of a comedy noire than a comedy. While it has its moments, I found most of the jokes to be low brow, slapstick humour that simply plays on the stereotypes of Thailand. And while some of the footage was quite beautiful, it's pretty hard to mess up the naturally beautiful scenes of the country.
But how do you not watch a movie that features a smoking monkey?
~Cheers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
