Change Your Image
Arenjee
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
RoboCop (2014)
Great movie, ignore the haters.
I went in to see this movie with low expectations but in the end, I was pleasantly surprised, as it outdoes the original in certain material aspects. Regardless, some viewers will exhibit strong resentment towards it, seeing its inherently 'flawed' conception as a remake, as a fatal handicap, warranting that they casually write it off for that reason alone. Another set of viewers would expectedly come from a place where they would tend to take this sort of movie way too seriously and will, understandably, view it as being incredulously stupid and vapid.
The truth though, is that the 1987 Robocop was never a serious movie, there was always a comedic campiness about it, laced with huge doses of gratuitous violence thrown in the mix. This quality accounts for its endearing and enduring allure, and the movie has therefore attained a well deserved cult following status; and there are no apologies for this.
This 2014 incarnation similarly delivers on these qualities, and much more. It gives us welcome the bonus of attempting a believable back story for the Robocop franchise, a service many remakes seem to be designed for. The action scenes as well as the art production, were more than adequate, the cast was organic and delivered superb performances, the movie was well paced, and the overall theme was cleverly adapted to reflect modern current political sensibilities.
The production team deftly handled the nuanced idea of the place of robots in modern society. The movie also explored the role of news anchors in tomorrow's world, seeing how much license journalists wield in todays world, somewhat recalling the back and forth diatribes of the likes of Hannity, or Jon Stewert with a bit of Fallon thrown in. The plot explored the medical dilemma that could arise regarding multiple bionic appendages, thereby asking a very important question: At what point does a man become, arguably, a machine? Is it an 'It' or a 'He', eliciting a tacit homage to Tinman from The Wizard of Oz, asking this question: Does it have a heart? The movie also covers the validity of the exercise of power over life and death: Being that you consider a bionic robot your asset, can you simply kill him, or switch him off? Another question this movie explores is the future of privacy laws in general.
I remember watching a promotional interview given by Peter Weller (a legend), comparing the role of Robocop to that of Gort (The Day The Earth Stood Still), basically asking the question: Can the world, innately corrupt as it is, handle the full, one glove fits all, authority of a super quasi omniscient cop? I also appreciate that this movie attempts an age old theme in that it locates the resilience of the human spirit, to overcome pervasive, manipulative chemical and electrical activity on the brain, thereby recalling the themes explored in Johnny Mnemonic and The Matrix.
These are smart things added to a movie which would ordinarily have survived on campiness and violence alone, as did the earlier version. This movie, a stellar cast, great visuals and sound, and brilliant but not overdone CGI, actually works.
Act of Valor (2012)
Movie with great potential but somewhat flawed
I really don't like it when I'm watching a movie, and within the first few scenes I'm wondering whether its worth my while.
OK, I've been hearing a lot of talk about Act of Valour. I've had it on my hard drive for a while now....I had some free time so I decided to watch, as usual, without first seeing a spoiler review. A few minutes in it seemed like a very well shot movie,but some of the early scenes were already annoying me.
First, there is something very disconcerting about the narrator's voice. Added to that, the first scenes with dialogue gave me a hint that something was missing......I mean, the acting was really lackluster and the characters are not emoting. So I paused, and I went over to IMDb to find out if there is indeed something I was missing; and voilà! It turns out that someone thought it would be a good idea to cast regular folks rather than actors for scenes requiring dialogue. It felt like a bad decision. Well, I did see it to the end hoping the next few scenes would make me change my mind and leave me pleasantly surprised?
As it went on, it appeared to be something better sold as a documentary. I patiently continued but felt it was Getting really cool as it went on. The action scenes were impeccable, and this drew me deeper into it until I got to the scenes which give this movie its title. Then it got really Cool!!!
I would recommend this movie. If you're not always too finicky about poor acting, but you love action flicks as much as I do, then You'd love this one. Its typical good versus evil, where the bad guys' asses get seriously kicked. Yeah my kinda feel good flick.
What dragged this movie backwards, in my view, were the poorly directed dialogue scenes. I guess maybe the director was enamored by the seals and didn't want to push it. Maybe they were just unavailable to re-shoot the scenes, and the editor was reluctant to cut them out because it would probably have seemed disrespectful; and that's why you should always use professionals. With professionals, entire segments in which they have appeared may not survive the editor's cut. Entire scenes could even be re-shot without them, and professionals are expected to have the small print in the contract shoved in their faces, they are expected to suck it in, and they walk away secretly hoping the movie bombs; a true act of valour. But who would dare do that to an actual living breathing gun tooting hero? Not the guys who made this movie.
Skyfall (2012)
Underwhelmed
Now am I a bond music person and the First ominous sign about the movie's tone was Adele's Skyfall theme, released prior to the movie. As lovely sounding and deftly delivered as it was, there was a certain drabness about it. It just lulled and lumbered, and titillated, but never arrived. (No, I wasn't expecting a full house, belting, herald like Tina Turner's, or Shirley Bassey's, after all my most preferred Bond themes are the tame Carly Simon's 'No body does it Better' (TSWLM), and Armstrong's 'We've got all the time in the world' (OHMSS), not to mention the divine Chris Cornell's 'You Know my Name' (CR)). I listened to skyfall over and over again to maybe gain an acquired taste for it...nothing. Its a lovely theme, but it won't make my top 15 bond themes.
Then I saw the movie, it was the same: nice, lulling, with deftly shot scenes, and the whole shebang. But something was awry, and that something is the thin line between a movie that is somewhat off because certain viewers find it hard to seamlessly suspend belief from the start to finish, on the one hand, and on the other hand, a movie with a plot so speckled with large enough holes that a large percentage, albeit a minority, of viewers leave the theaters feeling happy but less than satisfied, without fully appreciating the scope of the void that it had left in their movie loving hearts.
When I first shared my misgivings with some of my movie paddies, they felt the same way as I did, but there was a hesitancy to readily admit it, proving that everyone wanted skyfall to be all it aspired to be for an eagerly awaited Bond Movie. We all wanted it to work; and here lies the keystone to the puzzle: There is a large gulf of a difference between the aspirations of the Bond fans who really welcomed and wanted more of the freshness of 'Casino Royale' and accepted 'Quantum of Solace' for what it was worth. On the flip side, are the desperate aspirations of the Skyfall's producers and writers, vastly different from what the fans had in mind.
First Skyfall felt like a fresh Bond reboot too soon after the Casino Royale reboot. It could even be argued that it was a reboot of the Casino Royale reboot much in the same way 'The Amazing Spiderman' or 'X-Men First Class' were considered to be reboots done too soon, thereby making Skyfall somewhat unrecognizable as a bond movie to dedicated bond fans.
Second, the producers possibly aimed at and succeeded in pulling in a fresh audience through effective marketing and a bringing on a blinged up ambiance and grandeur of a feel to the movie, thoroughly Nolanizing it. What resulted was a visually satisfying action flick, but the skyfall characters, like many in the super hero genre, lacked depth and development. There was no chemistry between Craig and eve (Naomie Harris), M was too grim, Bardem's Julian Assenge like Silva was too demented a bond villain ever, and was more Ledger 'Dark knight' crazy, than the evil genius 'super villain' Blofeld like antagonists we've come to love and expect. In fact the debonair,gravitas, and level headed lunacy of the typical Bond villain is one of the striking attributes of what makes a Bond movie, a Bond movie. Bardem was brilliant, Silva was very irritating and confused (roll back to his attempted suicide scene, argh!!!).
Third, there was no Bond girl in Skyfall, its that simple. There were bond females, but no bond girl (no decent feminist should watch a bond movie so no complaints about my attachment to the term Bond girl). So I repeat, there was no bond girl in Skyfall. The emotional, tortured sex slave of Severine didn't sell as readily as Mariam D'Abo in TLD, Maud Adams in TMWTGG, or Jane Seymor in LALD and many others. I didn't get her, her easy access to bond, and her over staged death. Then lest I forget to mention the movie lacked any hint of a believable love triangle.
Forth, and most tellingly are the plot holes. Most movies have plot holes that we tend to ignore, but gaping ones leave you drained trying to fill up the voids as the movies progress.
Fifth, the Sykfall Bond is unrecognisable as Bond. We all always wanted some insight into the true bond after 50 years, we shouldn't be surprised that producers would want to fill his character out a bit. A plausible back story would be welcome. Bond is actually basically a spy and an assassin (which means he should be conflicted and disturbed to some extent, and most fans expect that), but he needn't be drunk, disheveled, and bungling, boss killing, and dumbed down to make him more human. Bond ain't no Hancock.
Bond is action fantasy A.k.a. Our Man Flint. Plenty in a bond movie should defy reason and transport you to another world. But it must have cohesion, an it must make sense. Funny thing is this movie has been a huge success, honestly it was well made. But its not a Bond movie, it could have been, and then it would be one of the greatest bond movies ever, but it wasn't. So far, with Skyfall, Bond is dead. I hope the next one revives the bond we know and will simultaneously bring on all the Nolan bling to boot
Prometheus (2012)
visually stimulating bad movie
Spoiler Alert!!! Couldn't help posting this.
Problems with prometheus!! There were many gaping plot holes. The movie lacked a clear direction/goal, and rather than have the pieces of the jigsaw puzzle fit nicely together, it just meandered. The main players lacked presence and were never fully formed. The premise and theme is nothing new in Hollywood, its like a mash up of Alien, 2001, and Mission to Mars. The whole thing just didn't add up for me.
1. They're wearing under wear during hibernation 2. They got to the very spot with a built up structure just as they arrived. Perhaps they'd sent satellites in advance to map the terrain.
3. Helmets also protect from possible germs. Removing you helmet on another class M world is a big no no! 4. Why was the objective of the entire mission so nebulous? 5. Why send in humans if the cyborg could have gone alone outside the ship.
6. Why bring in the geologist? 7. Droids could have first searched for life forms.
8. They tell the others not to touch anything but having their mask off they have contaminated everything.
9. They should have been able to detect sand storm before it arrived. Even if somewhat sudden.
10. Why is no one scared of cross contamination? 11. Why are they shocked there's a human like head under the helmet. Wasn't there a big fat face on the cave wall? 12. Why be scared of cross contamination only after the head is about to blow up? 13. Two guys left in a scary cave, there is no emergency contingency in case they encounter hostile life forms. They are not prepared or trained in arms.
14. There is no remote cctc coverage to record what happened to the first two guys who died. But they have automatic self propelled remote censors traipsing through the tunnels.
15. The high tech aliens can only boast of grainy super low def 3D footage.
16. I had a c section!! No one runs around after a c section. No one!!!! 17. There was not a single medical doctor on board? Really!! And the medi pod scene itself was in-credible.........
so much more to add.
The Magnificent Two (1967)
This one was really fun to watch
I remember seeing this movie as a child with my brothers and sisters sometime in the 80's and we loved it. We were all already very familiar with their comedy series and were elated when we heard that they were in this movie. What made it so memorable was the plot itself. Really simple and straight forward, quirky and funny. Then there is the contrast between the two main characters and their Latin American co characters. It simply flowed and it worked very very well. It had some slapstick, subtle puns, and a few delightful stunts. Ahaaaaaaaaaaa! lest I forget to mention that there is something for the kids as well. It reminds me of 'The three amigos' and is just as funny. It was meant to be light comedy and the producers pulled it off excellently.