|By date||Most helpful reviews||By my score||By metascore||By user score|
Average User Score: 7.9Apr 21, 2018....but it sure is terrible, isn't it?
There isn't much to say about this movie that is made by the same team that gave us Shaun of the....but it sure is terrible, isn't it?
There isn't much to say about this movie that is made by the same team that gave us Shaun of the Dead(short Shaun) and Hott Fuzz. While those two movies worked due to speed, and combination of fun and funny lines and scenes, this mix fails for the World's End. The fail is from the get go. Gary King, alcoholic and failed person in general, wants to redo a (failed) pub crawl that he and four former friends did twenty years ago. It feels as pathetic. Especially when it becomes clear that his former friends have moved on and are reluctant to join in. The main fail is that I simply couldn't really care much for King. He obvious is a bad friend and always has been. He lies and cheats his supposed friends during the movie, who somehow take all this without walking out on him. But according to this movie, this is funny.
A tell-tale sign that this movies isn't working well is the exposition at the start of the movie. In my experience exposition, the movie explaining itself to the viewer, is a bad technique and usually marks the inability of story to weave the background into the movie itself. There are examples where it does work(The third man) or is kept to a minimum (Star Wars, A new hope)as to be unnoticeable, but here it distracts and slows the movie down. In Shaun the people were thrown into it, in the World's End King has to recruit his former friends. But there is obviously no reason for the others to join King in reliving his pubescent fantasy and much against it. And when Martin Freeman says something along the lines of: what am I doing here, this question almost breaks the fourth wall and at least feels like an ironic commentary on the movie. What indeed are you doing (here)? And it is never explained or made believable. If the movie had taken the angle of five friends having a reunion after twenty years that turns into a pub crawl, it could have worked, but redoing a pub crawl from the outset while it is obvious they are not interested and then have these reluctant friends down large pints of been is illogical. It is abusing your powers as a scriptwriter to have your characters do things they simply would not do and pass it of as being funny. Halfway through the movie is changed to a variant on Stepford Wives. It is understandable as the whole five-former-friends-redo-a-failed-pub crawl had run out of steam about a third into the movie. But the aliens-use-robots-to-replace-people thing doesn't work either. It is just an series of the group fighting robot people in various pubs while King thinks of a lame excuse to try and finish the pub crawl. There is no reason and it isn't funny. Perhaps the worst moment how unfunny this movie is, is when King and Sam, the sister of one of his former friends, try to flee by using Sam's car, and King deliberately wrecks it for no reason at all. Sam doesn't even bat an eye.
All in all a failed attempt at trying to be funny. The formula that works for Shaun of the Dead and Hott Fuzz fails in this one.… Expand
Average User Score: 6.7Mar 10, 2018For a moment I felt myself dropped into the Mass Effect Andromeda game when confronted by what must be one of the most boring, genericFor a moment I felt myself dropped into the Mass Effect Andromeda game when confronted by what must be one of the most boring, generic adversary I have seen for a decade. Whereas in Andromeda they at least try to flesh out to enemy leader more, here we get you run-of-the mill generic reptilian looking baddy with a slavish following wanting to destroy the federation for reasons. He also seems to have the control a large fleet of ships and seems totally unaccountable to anyone. Excruciating boring are the few exchanges he has with Kirk and Uhura. Yes, yes, being the top dog is all that counts in our amoral universe.
I dare say that star trek heads the opposite of star wars as it denudes itself from anything that makes sense or makes you feel connected to the people. There are some attempts at this, but as someone said elsewhere. They nod at it and then continues with the relentless frantic action scenes that seem to topple over each-other. No pause is given as the movie goes from chase scene, to fight scene, to blow up scene. It is written large: there will be no moment to ponder. Of course there are a few moments in which pondering happens, but they are at the beginning, just to get them over with. Star Trek beyond baffles mostly by the outrageous: the sheer outrageous stupidity of the cast making one idiotic decision after the other, the sheer outrageous luck that gets them out of their predicament that those idiotic decisions put them into, the sheer idiocy of the writing that offers the outrageous funniest and outrageous ridiculous moments, such as the one where they blow up the enemies swarms of ship with an old rock song.
The biggest problem is that the cast of well established characters are in fact outrageous boring, with the exception of Uhura and some newcomers.
It would be better if Star Trek rebooted again and then introduced us with some new characters so that they can be fleshed out and explored. Give the whole movie some more depth and people motivation that make sense.
Just having a uninteresting star trek crew take on a generic baddy is.. (here it comes) beyond boring.
That all been said, if you like a relentless series of action scenes that does not pause for anything substantial, you will probably find that here. But to be honest: you get the same with Guardians of the Galaxy, but that has better characters, slightly more depth and more humor definitely. So if you have to face that choice, you know what you are getting into.… Expand
Average User Score: 7.4Mar 9, 2018I have not been much interested in Stalin, even though he is an pivotal figure in history, but for his death. The events surrounding his deathI have not been much interested in Stalin, even though he is an pivotal figure in history, but for his death. The events surrounding his death (and the struggle for power that ensues) made me think of the death of Tiberius, the Roman emperor who succeeded Augustus and was succeeded in turn by Caligula. There are similarities there, even though Tiberius struck me as the more sympathetic ruler of the two. One moment especially made the connection, Tiberius lies on his deathbed, but he suddenly seems to come back to life. Caligula, who has taken the signet ring from the emperor's hand, cringes, pleads and begs his excuses. The emperor falls back on to the bed and is finally definitely dead. Another version has the head of the guard choke the emperor to death. Almost a similar moment can be found in this movie when Stalin seems momentarily to recover, making Beria, head of the security services, cringe and terrified as well. He was already setting in motion the takeover of power. Something the dictator might not see in a favorable light.
The movie is a terrible movie, for it shows what shocking terror the people in the Soviet Union had to live with under this most abject of rulers. And even though it might look over the top, reading up on sources will show you that it was like that. There is a danger to compare him to Hitler, that other abject ruler but let's not go into that. The terror can be felt in every scene and one of the shocking moments sees the entire house of Stalin being emptied by security forces and most of the staff and guards get shot by other guards. Beria's orders do not even spare his own men. Nobody is safe. The scene ends with a truck driving off with the guard ordering it to drive away getting shot in the head by another guard.
The movie is positioned as a comedy and a drama, and even though there is a certain comedy, mostly very dark, at no point is this cheap or over the top. Point in case is the opening scene. We witness the end of concert which is broadcast by a radio station. The phone rings: it is Stalin. He instructs the man to ring him back in 17 minutes. Terrified the man calls back and is then instructed to deliver a recording of the concert to dictator. But they did not record the event. And panic ensues as they redo the concert as to record it and, of course, everything goes wrong. It is funny in a way, but the underlying terror and dread is palpable. You might think this is all not real, but we know from history that Stalin actually did this. The acting is superb and I cannot actually say who takes the cake here, Buscemi is excellent as Khrushchev, Beale matches his with his portrayal of Beria. But also Tambor makes a marvelous role as weak Malenkov and Palin does a nice job as sycophant Molotov. My opinion is that one should invent an oscar for the best group of actors in a movie. My vote would be for this movie.
If there is a crucial moment in the movie then it is the moment that Beria, losing grip on the situation, threatens the other members of the Central Committee. You could feel that it would backfire. And we see how Khrushchev makes use of the moment in a marvelous but, for him no doubt, nerve-wracking manner.
The movie is an incredible well done teamwork and I love it is done by people like Buscemi, Tambor and Beale. Give actors a good script and they pull it off. This is how movies should be. It is why I often blame the badness of movies not on the actors, but on the director and the script. I would almost give this one a ten. The reason I don't give it a 10 is because the movie takes shortcuts with history. A cursory glance says that some of the events did not happen that way. Just read up on Beria's death.… Expand
Average User Score: 7.0Dec 24, 2017Every once in a while someone tries to take a shot at the western genre, seemingly in an attempt to flog that long dead horse back to lifeEvery once in a while someone tries to take a shot at the western genre, seemingly in an attempt to flog that long dead horse back to life again, but the result is at best iffy, in the case of the ballad of left brown we get a snore feast. My god what is this movie boring. This can be totally written down to the pace of the movie, the predictable plot, the run-of-the-mill characters, and the weak dialog. Bill Pullman, playing the title role, is not a bad actor, but without anything to make the the character remotely interesting any acting effort is wasted. The director is a master in making ill use of the conflict brewing between Lefty and the wife of his former friend, neglecting to use the landscapes and any the lack of having interesting cinema photography. It is a marvel to notice in the far distance the chance for a nice landscape shot that is totally lost on the director who prefers to have his sky lines blocked with shrubbery and brush. What is even worse, this movie, like many others, as has been pointed out by a critic, suffers of the one color scheme curse. Everything is dusty earth tones. It is the easy lazy digitalization method. The result is a plodding colorless movie. It is a pity, for the idea behind, a sidekick who gets forced into the limelight, who has a strenuous relation with his former friends wife and has nothing going for him that taking revenge could have been interesting.… Expand
Average User Score: 6.6Dec 3, 2017I wrote a review about this turd of a movie a few days back and was more lenient than I should have been. Resident Evil: Vendetta is aI wrote a review about this turd of a movie a few days back and was more lenient than I should have been. Resident Evil: Vendetta is a disastrous bad movie which deserves a resounding zero if it wasn't for the animations that by current days standard are well done, but will no doubt be outdated in a few years time. Vendetta should not have been made. This movie lacks almost anything worthwhile and does not in any way push the bar. Why make an animation movie that is even worse than the normal ones made by Anderson?
The story. A dude with a grudge against some government (the US one probably because the story unfolds in the US) plans to exact revenge by unleashing a virus on the populace because that government bombed his wedding for he was a nasty piece of work. He is that elegant refined evil dude that are the one out of two main bad guy-types that anime has managed to produce. He has the usual side kicks. The leather clad vixen and the brutish thug. He has the usual riches. He has the usual score of devoted followers. He has the usual knowledge of everything(except when the plot doesn't want him to.) He is the usual brooding type. As usual he is omnipotent and omnipresent, just like the bearded guy, but without the omni-benevolence.That is, until they plot requires him to be otherwise. Such characters are not persons, they are targets. And therefore, like targets, they are without personality.
The heroes are nothing remarkable either. The rough and ready fighter and the reluctant brooding sarcastic warrior. They team up to rescue the world from the zombies and the girl from the evil bad dude. The girl is, as usual in stuff like this, there to be put in danger so as to be saved. Her function is to be pretty, to be put in danger and to claps her hands in joy and exclaim, "My heroes." The dialog is atrocious. You know what these guys will be saying and how they will say it. And the makers of this movie do not digress in any way of the well trodden route. Anyone could have written this, you just grab a few comics and copy and past the dialog right into this movie and you are done. Actually that must have what they did.
The upshot is that there is nothing to connect to. Everything and everyone is cliché, but in a remarkably bad way. The way in that you simply do not connect and thus not care. This movie just utterly fails because you don't care about any of it.
The style and graphics are equally soulless. If you take for instance Sin city of A scanner darkly, they try to use the possibilities that animations can bring to table. Different and unusual styles, colors and angles; powerful imagery. What does this movie do? It tries to mimic reality in every detail but makes a pastiche of everything. It says probably art direction in the credits. What art? What direction?
This movie can best be seen as the back-story to a computer game. It would still be uninspired, style-less, soulless and lame, but then the player gets to play with guns and shoot monsters. Which is more than half the fun. But with this movie you have to passively watch this stream of uninspiration being pumped out. And there is nothing to take away the chilling realization that you just witnessed something astoundingly bad. If that is what you like then, by all means, go and watch it.
If you want to have more fun; go watch paint dry.… Expand
Average User Score: 5.8Nov 21, 2017This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. This is a movie that pairs spectacular visuals and well done choreography with a weak story and shallow characters. But let's not go into that, but instead let's have a look at what sixty years of preparation for the eventful onslaught has given the defenders. For the Chinese defenders know that every sixty years these monsters make an attack and once that succeeds the whole world is at their feet.. eh claws.
Your enemy is a reptilian dog hybrid that is the size of a draft horse. It comes with claws, teeth and a thick hide, can stand an amazing amount of punishment and is suicidally loyal to their queen. One such monster can easily take out a group of well-trained and armed humans. The creatures have however a few severe weaknesses: killing their queen will stop them from functioning, confronting them with magnets will make them docile and hitting their eyes is an instant kill. And the defenders have one big advantage: they have gunpowder at their disposal.
So armed with knowledge about a weakness for magnets the Chinese defenders neglect to send out people all over the world to find magnets or even use the one magnet that stopped the monsters in a previous assault. Instead they use ineffectual methods until saved by this one random traveler who is carrying around a massive magnetic stone that serves no purpose to him and is there only to be delivered into the hands of the Chinese as a lapis ex Machina. And even when the Chinese are aware of the stone's effect on the monsters no messengers are send out to the far corners of the empire to collect whatever stones can be found. To add insult to injury, they even take away the one stone from the wall to show it to the emperor. And what happened to that stone that saved the day sixty years before? And why was it not examined back then?
The queen is the Achilles heel and the defenders only make a half hearted attempt to take her out. She is protected by a group of special monsters that can create a kind of shield to protect her from attacks, which is put up exactly the few times the defenders make an attempt to kill her.
She gets bombarded once and then when that defensive shield is put up they give up. Conveniently at the end of the movie the shield is put down to give Matt Damon a window of opportunity even when the queen knows someone is firing at her. And this several times over. Yes, these monsters have become smarter, as the movie has it, but only by a margin as compared to humans.
And this shows again the sheer stupidity of the defenders. They have had sixty years to prepare for the onslaught and could have created a massive supply of gunpowder weapons aimed to take out the queen. -And note that even a few arrows with gunpowder are apparently very effective against the monsters -. Couple this with oil canisters and naphtha flame throwers they could have killed her by blowing her up or burning her to death. But instead they rely on arrows, swords and spears. It isn't that the monsters have become smarter, the humans have become dumber.
But even if they did not possess gunpowder and magnets then it is baffling what preparations they made in sixty years. For instance the monsters are apparently able to scale the wall. So why put up a flat wall that can easily be scaled instead of equipping the wall with defensive measures against scaling such as barbs that point downwards? Why is the wall not equipped with extensions as to rain down boiling water or fire? Why are the ballistae put on top of the wall but not on level with the monsters so as to have them fire in a level trajectory optimizing the chance of hitting something? Why is the foreground of the wall not used to create obstacles, pits, stakes, traps and a moat instead of allowing the monsters free range of that area? Even putting up beams spaced out to allow room for humans but to narrow for these hulking brutes would have broken up their attack and allow the defenders protection.
Perhaps it is because the wall, as cool as it looks, was not made to defend against these monsters but against the tribes? But most baffling of all. Why did the monsters bother with attacking the Chinese when they could just as easily move to any other part of the world that lack this defensive construction?
The movie would have made a lot more sense if the Chinese had not known about these monsters. Then the lack of proper countermeasures would have made a lot more sense. The wall was made to keep out the steppe people, not massive deadly beasts. Yes, I know.. The movie has to be spectacular. But couldn't they not have put some effort into it to make it also more logical? Now it feels like the Chinese are just stupid and require a foreigner to save the day. Oh yeah, an American foreigner.… Expand
Average User Score: 8.8Aug 14, 2017Third attempt to write a review. With all the pop ups this is getting to be a chore.
Did you read any reviews before watching this movie orThird attempt to write a review. With all the pop ups this is getting to be a chore.
Did you read any reviews before watching this movie or rating or even reviewing this?
I think that my feelings are best captured by Hello Texas11 on IMDB, but I am somewhat more benign towards the movie. Basically this is a movie that goes by the numbers and serves the usual tropes. And it does so without twists. The good part of this movie is that it is well made and has a few good actors to carry it. Most of the credit goes to John Malkovich and somewhat less to Clint Eastwood. The latter mostly reprises his Dirty Harry role, but more of a burned out kind. Rene Russo and Dylan McDermott are doing their best in their supporting roles. Russo gets the lesser role as the prospective romantic interest for Eastwood.
The main issue is that there is nothing remarkable about this movie. Hello Texas11 describes it as an attempt to be a mix of the Manchurian Candidate and Silence of the Lambs, but never getting to the depth of both movies. I would agree even though Silence of the Lambs seems somewhat unfitting. But the thing is: it tries to put Malkovich in the scary killer role and it fails in making him scary. What we get is a run of the mill thriller, well executed but mostly forgettable. There is no depth, nothing captivating and in the end nothing to take home with you.
I can imagine more interesting movies: the Manchurian candidate being one of them.
This is therefore a mundane thriller that doesn't tickle the fancy: a six at best.… Expand
Average User Score: 7.3Apr 30, 2017This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Is it sad to know that even after then end of civilization people still get massacred for and over the good book again and again until the end of days? I can hardly say it would be irony, so let's stick to sad, shall we?
Denzel Washington traverses a dystopian US , that has seen the sun come down from heaven roughly thirty years ago, in a mission to go west. He isn't a young boy, but that does not matter here. Like in Yojimbo Washington wanders into some godforsaken hell hole terrorized by a bunch of goons. Like in Yojimbo Washington kills a group of bikers, but uses a machete instead of a katana. God has never had much trouble with killing people and Washington hasn't either. The killing impresses boss dude Gary Oldman and he wants to recruit him.
But Washington doesn't want to play nice with the boss and runs off to the west, picking up the unwanted companion Mila Kunis. There are some confrontations, some moments of insights between Washington and Kunis(PG rated) and the movie ends with Washington's mission accomplished and him dead, for that is how god likes his followers. A lot more people die however, but who cares, they are unbelievers anyway and we can rest assured that more god blessed bloodshed will be in store in the future. The movie has impressed me with the shots. Some of them were really nice. Washington, Oldman and even Kunis were okay. But otherwise the movie made not much sense. For instance, how come after thirty years nobody has bothered to clear away the debris, and fix and clean the houses? Every inhabitable house is a dilapidated ruin. What about the guy Washington finds at the start of the movie who has hanged himself or might have been hanged and is found in a cupboard that with closed doors. Did he close it just prior to hanging himself? How about Washington locking up Kunis, but the movie does not bother to show us how she escaped? How about Washington standing in the middle of a street being shot at from all directions but not being hit once? How about Washington taking thirty years to travel from the east coast to the west coast? The list goes on and on.
A rambling plot, but, I give the movie that, it has a nice twist. And the shots were nice.… Expand
Average User Score: 7.1Apr 13, 2017Guess who? There is Robert Rodriguez and there is his pal Quentin Tarantino. One of the two excels in masterful dialogue, great scenes,Guess who? There is Robert Rodriguez and there is his pal Quentin Tarantino. One of the two excels in masterful dialogue, great scenes, powerful and well-cast movies, the other is a hack.
Had Machete been done by Tarantino, would it have been any better? I wouldn't know for sure, but perhaps the dialogue would be better and the scenes and the music and the direction and the cinematography and the plot.. well okay it would have.
The charm of this movie lies with Danny Trejo and his machete wielding is fun for about ten minutes, as long as the fake trailer that inspired this movie. For the remainder of this feature you have to like the b-movie style that Rodriguez masters in. It is pawned off as some form of art. I agree, when making movies in the style of second rate movies(or even third rate) has become art, it certainly is. And you don't have to agree that it is art if you don't like to. Art is toilet paper.
Highlights in the movie are Steven Seagal as bad guy(which I personally think he is better suited for) and Lindsay Lohan as bimbo daughter who does anything to get attention. Yes, there is irony. I also like Michelle Rodriguez because I like her. Oh and Jessica Alba is also in it. There is little else to add. Well, Robert De Niro plays himself and a gray Don Johnson puts in an appearance(wow, where have you been dude?), both as bad guys.
Like most of Rodriguez's movies, this one is a bit of a dud. Fire and forget. Watch if you do not have something better to do. If that is the case, you probably need to refocus on your life or get drunk(or tripping). In the latter case, you are in the right frame of mind to watch this movie. Just remember to throw up when the pregnant girl gets shot in the belly and again when a girl gets her eye shot out. Gosh, it might even become campy. Cheers, mate.… Expand
Average User Score: 6.8Apr 8, 2017So what to think of this movie that is created in the shadow of a popular predecessor(currently 8.0 on imdb)? I would almost say: don't do it.So what to think of this movie that is created in the shadow of a popular predecessor(currently 8.0 on imdb)? I would almost say: don't do it. It is what I would say when planning a remake of Old Boy or a squel to Trainspotting, Blade Runner or any iconic movie. Don't do it. But I have to admit that I am curious about the sequel to Blade Runner nevertheless. Maybe it isn't going to be as bad as I fear?
So what about a remake of Ghost in the Shell?
Well, I have yet to see the original, so I can not compare it to that one, and that is fine. This movie, with Scarlet Johannson in the role of Major Mika Killian, a cybernetic lifeform with only her brain being human, is on the face of it an action movie with some depth. Personally I think the the second half of the movie shows some more depth, with the Major being more on the path of self discovery, than the first half. Some scenes I did find touching. Personally I liked Pilou Asbaek as Bayou.
There is certainly some room for criticism, specifically in the way that they hammer in what they mean with the word ghost. Yes.. yes.. we know, you don't have to repeat it over and over throughout the film. Also, while I don't think that Johannson is miscast, I do think that she is also not well cast either. She gives a good performance, as might be expected, but every time she walks out into the rain I expected the black from her hair to wash out to show she is really a blond. No, it isn't that what bothers me specifically, just that she felt out of place at times. It would have been better if they had chosen someone like Maggie Q or Kim So-yeon. Not because she has to be an asian, but because if a big part of your movie is asian and plays in a seemingly asian town, then why make the lead not asian. Seems to make more sense?
Also the first half of the story the good guys are pitted against an adversaries who is one step ahead of them, but in the second half this suddenly changes. Maybe the most criticism can be levelled at the pace of the movie. It takes little time to reflect on things and have some silent moments(there is however a great one)something that the anime Ghost in the Shell 2 has(it is the one that I did see).
A fair action movie with nice visuals and superficial depth, but a bit hampered by not daring to delve more deeper and not attempting to stand out. As such it is more a mainstream action movie than anything else and thus eventually it will probably be remembered as that other Ghost in the Shell movie.… Expand