Average User Score: 6.5Aug 22, 2013As Bender would say, Lone Ranger is simply fun on a bun.
I'm not entirely sure what critics were expecting to see here, but it's clear they had the wrong head on. The plot is somewhat disjointed, but I fail to see that as a negative. If anything TLR does a more than worthy job of plotting the narrative of many different characters as the film steers toward the end. It's all predictable stuff, but, honestly, wasn't POTC? I fail to see how this is in any way inferior.
Depp, of course, is the main draw. He was always going to be. He more than makes up for the particularly weak portrayal of Lone Ranger, an actor I can only describe as some Brendon Fraser wannabe.
The laughs aren't abundant, nor are they clever, but Depp still delivers them with charm.
The runtime causes for some fatigue, and I would say there was a generally long section of desert crawling which could have been cut. And the anecdotal way the story was told at the beginning detracted the meaning somewhat.
Still, a very fun film. Far more bearable than The Man of Steel.… Expand
Average User Score: 6.1Jul 7, 2013A travesty, pure and simple.
I think we could all accept the mediocre movie on display if it had kept to itself, and not interfered with the works beforehand. But not only does the film breach into territory the original trilogy worked so hard to set up, it ruins all the meaning from it, just so they can selfishly continue the franchise without Damon and Greengrass.… Expand
Average User Score: 7.5Jul 7, 2013All the hype, all the press, all the praise, would suggest this to be the best Bond ever. Part of me would say; that's probably not a far cry from the truth, yet, it's hardly an accolade worth boasting about either.
Throughout the overdrawn and increasingly sigh worthy decisions made by all the characters in play, it became apparent by the end that Skyfall was at best a bloated, nonsensical bore, straining so hard for glory, that it managed to fool the majority of the audience.
Javier Bardem, despite his brilliance as Chigurgh in No Country for Old Men, is completely wasted here. And i'm not sure in which way I mean that, as he clearly looked off his rocker for the entirety of the film. Perhaps that was the point, but I would have thought the writers would have used him wisely, rather than spewing out another camp, ridiculous villain. A complete waste of opportunity and talent.
As for the plot, it struggles along from A to B, as both band and Camp Bond Villain #38 make increasingly unbelievable judgment calls. The finale is perhaps the most laughable standoff I've seen in years. Without any spoiling, Bond, with all his guile and wit, makes the decision to essentially hide in a remote, derelict building.
Well, there'll never find us here... says Bond.
It seems it's not just the audience that are all too happy to dance along to the nonsense.… Expand
Average User Score: 6.3Jul 7, 2013In some respects, it's easy to see why Jack Reacher was never going to be a darling for the critics. Where in the Crime genre, you expect great success to only come from a riveting script, cajoled and simmered for years before anyone even thinks about directing it.
What you must remember, then, is that Lee Child knocks one of these books out every year. If anything, the story he provides is just a standard crime thriller. Such prolific output is usually fit for straight-to-TV drama series', so it's a surprise that Jack Reacher not only received the treatment it deserved, but also provides perhaps the most entertaining crime-thriller since The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo.
Tom Cruise, hate him or love him, and forgetting the height issue, is definitely Reacher. Part of my respect for the film comes from solely how well he pulled the character off. As for the plot, it's standard Lee Child fare. You're provided with the general story, not so much a whodunnit as a whodiddit with them. There's red herrings, viewpoints from both the good and bad guys, and it is all paced at the same break neck speed as the novels.
My only gripe is that the reveals are all quite predictable and unexciting, which again, comes back to Child's original work. Although he can write great material and characters, the mystery side to his novels has, even after all these years, been rather amateurish. But what's important here is that everyone involved in the film makes it completely believable, right until the final scene, which, is hardly Bourne, but still a great finale.… Expand
Average User Score: 6.8Jul 7, 2013For a film that clearly had trouble during production, and also completely disregarded the novel it's based on, World War Z is a surprise, mild success.
I would suppose the general luke-warm response from the average movie goer is largely based on their expectations. Those wishing for an all-out zombie shoot em up will find themselves, quite rightly, disappointed. Yet, at the same time, those expecting the intelligence and deep insight from the novel will also be disappointed.
Ignoring the fact that it would near impossible to film World War Z:The novel, the writers obviously went for their own standalone story, minutely based within the WWZ world.
And as a standalone movie, it fares well. There is enough general scope of the apocalypse, and it is clear they wanted to depict some of the thoughts and actions described in Max Brooks' novel. Brad Pitt is as bearable as ever as the lead and manages to divert attention away from the generally bored-looking support cast.
Where the movie falls short, then, is there just isn't enough quality of any particular subject matter. The effects and portrayal of the apocalypse on hand pale in comparison to something like The Road, influenced and written by Cormac McCarthy. The zombie lore is considerably weak, and the ending solution has very little if anything to do with the world the film is allegedly based within. And the ending was admittedly drawn out and yawn inducing.… Expand
Average User Score: 7.6Jul 7, 2013For a film that included non-stop building destruction and overblown fit-for-children violence, Man of Steel not only manages to be uninteresting and dull, but partly laughable in stages.
An unholy amount of back story and flashes drags the first half beyond reason, and the outrageous amount of fist fights between immortals and half of America's army in the second only further points the movie toward tedium. The scale and enormity of the violence is laughably trivial, that I had to wonder if I was watching the blockbuster version of Dragon Ball Z, where the violence never ends due to the borderline immortal characters.
Except, a film must end. And ignoring the awful cast and characterization When a German actress playing a side role outdoes everyone else, you have a problem the final scene of action is so hilariously trite. Despite causing Billions of dollars worth of damage and no doubt killing thousands in the process, they tag a moral scene on at the end for Superman Yes, that is your name, despite the film's idea of subtlety which is not only irrelevant, but insulting.… Expand
Average User Score: 6.9Jul 7, 2013Despite a well laid introduction and intriguing premise, Now You See Me stumbles going into its second act and never recovers the scope or direction required to live up to its grandiose attempt at cross genre crime-drama.
This is all down to the simple fact that Now You See Me has a severe case of identity crisis. The general idea is a pick and mix of several "plot-twist based genres," including "Magicians" The Prestige, The Illusionist "Heist Movie" Oceans 11 "Deception" Usual Suspects, Saw The Departed) and general "Cat and Mouse" drama Catch Me if You Can ).
While this sounds like a recipe for brilliance, the end product throws too many ingredients in the pot for any single flavor to emerge even remotely tasteful, leaving the audience somewhat empty when the hum-drum reveal at the end does little to evoke surprise or awe.
The main problem is each of the films parts never lead to anything substantially satisfying. Remember what made The Illusionist so good? It was the fact the magic on display was all part of an underlying trick, and when Paul Giamatti his head back, and laughs at the brilliance of it all, so did the audience. NYSM would like to think it did the same thing, indeed, Morgan Freeman et al practically reinforce the point every ten minutes, that "everything in play is part of a much bigger illusion." Perhaps it is, but it's all thoroughly unconvincing. And when you ignore the motives and reason for all that takes place, the "magic" on display is either tiring, or beyond belief.
Also worthy of note is the complete lack of characterization. The combination of Harrelson and Eisenberg should have been a winner from the start, yet, they're barely given the screen time to save things, never mind a decent script. During the run up to release, I had to wonder why Emma Stone didn't join them. One reason could be she saw the script and didn't think there'd be much point with the way the magicians characters were handled.
Instead, the majority of the movie focuses on the FBI agent tracking everything down, and the rather fetching Interpol agent assisting him. Again, perhaps the idea around this, given the ending, was to further the film's sense of deception and illusion, but it still doesn't make up for about an hour's worth of boredom, and only helps the ending to be entirely unsatisfactory. In fact, a lot of the earlier actions of certain characters don't even make sense when you realize the truth.
Throw in a rather absurd car chase, and at the same time, predictable plot twist regarding said scene and you have a movie that doesn't even seem to be attempting cleverness anymore.
With that said, the film is entirely watchable when merely watched without anticipation. Just don't expect another Prestige or Illusionist.
When you come to the end reveal in such a movie, there's generally three reactions: there's the "Ahhh", the "Oh..." and the "Mehh.."
This film definitely only approaches "Oh."… Expand