|By date||Most helpful reviews||By my score||By metascore||By user score|
Average User Score: 5.7Apr 20, 2014This film borrows heavily from Die Hard. It's about Gerard Butler, a Secret Service agent who acts as an inside man to stop a terroristThis film borrows heavily from Die Hard. It's about Gerard Butler, a Secret Service agent who acts as an inside man to stop a terrorist attack. Overall, this movie is well-acted, intense and enjoyable (which is enough for action junkies with little standards or expectations). For demanding viewers, skip this film.
6/10 - For some reason, metacritic registered my score as 0 and I can't change it.… Expand
Average User Score: 6.4May 3, 2014First off, I did like the performances from the majority of the cast. Andrew Garfield is a great Spider-Man with his wit and comical momentsFirst off, I did like the performances from the majority of the cast. Andrew Garfield is a great Spider-Man with his wit and comical moments (though hit-and-miss), and a more human Peter Parker than the first film (if overly sentimental). He and Emma Stone have their moments because they both have excellent chemistry. Dane DeHaan almost steals the show as Harry Osborne, who plays pathetic and menacing equally well. Jamie Foxx couldn't have been the worst choice for Electro. Not only was Electro the most uninteresting villain in the film, Max Dillon's goofy, anti-social behaviour just wasn't a good fit for Jamie Foxx's charisma.
The CGI set-pieces were fun to watch and I like how the film tries to be more dramatic as well, like Sam Raimi's Spider-Man films. I appreciate action movies with more narrative than action sequences or set-pieces (like this movie) but with all that said, I'm surprised people actually like this movie. The critics are right, the script was overstuffed. It crams too many subplots and too many characters into a bloating running time. This was the problem with Spider-Man 3 (a movie everyone was disappointed with) and it's a bigger problem here, but Marc Webb gets a free pass from the Spider-Man fanboys who didn't like Sam Raimi's Spider-Man movies because "it didn't follow the comic books" or whatever.
It jumps back and forth between multiple subplots, between his relationship with Gwen, his relationship with Harry, Harry's illness, Electro's origin, and the origin of his parents. I liked the chemistry between Garfield and Stone but the painfully cheesy dialogues makes their relationship look like a Twilight movie. Everyone hates that franchise but because this is a Spider-Man movie, it gets another free pass. Romance is often a subplot in many movies but the romance is (more or less) the main plot of this film, which is fine if it wasn't cliched and Twilight-esque.
His relationship with Harry feels forced, right from the moment Harry mentioned Peter's braces and Peter mentioned him blow-drying and combing his hair all the time or something like that. The origin of Peter's parents had nothing to do with the main plot at all and became irrelevant once the subplot had been resolved. I guess they had to continue where the first film left off but I honestly couldn't care less about his parents.
How do you cram three villains into one movie without being overcrowded? By barely featuring any of them in the film. Rhino only has four minutes of screen time. It was completely pointless! If that's their way of introducing him for the next sequel, they should've just introduced him in the next sequel. The Rhino footage in the trailer is all that you see from him in the film. And the boy standing in front of him trying to be Spider-Man, what a ****ing embarrassment. When you see Spider-Man swinging a manhole cover at the Rhino, that was the beginning of the fight scene and the end of the movie. I wanted to see a fight scene between the two before the movie started but because the movie bored the **** out of me, I couldn't care less that it ended that way.
There's also more Harry Osborne than The Green Goblin and the The Green Goblin was only there to kill off Gwen Stacy. Heartbreaking? Sure, but also contrived. Still, I can't help but feel like The Green Goblin is another wasted villain. Max Dillon is a character I could've felt sympathy for. He's lonely, socially awkward and under-appreciated. Max Dillon could've been a great character, had they not squandered his potential as soon as he became Electro. At that point, the script needed a villain, even if it didn't make sense because Max Dillon is a huge fan of Spider-Man, almost like a creepy stalker. He doesn't even have a justifying motive for killing Spider-Man. Neither did Harry Osborne because why would a blood transfusion cure his illness? And why is his hereditary illness affecting him at a much younger age than his father? I suppose no one in the audience were supposed to notice.
TASM2 tries to be different from the plethora amount of superhero movies that came out recently by having a deeper narrative, which is fine but it falls short in storytelling. It just seems to drag on for far too long and I was hoping the set-pieces would make up for all of the shortcomings, but there was not enough of it due to a lack of balance. The performances, set-pieces and Marc Webb's direction saves the film from being a complete disaster, but as a Spider-Man fan, I was hugely disappointed. I wanted the movie to be as good as Spider-Man 2 because, in my opinion, TASM was as good as Sam Raimi's Spider-Man in its own merit, but this was worse than Spider-Man 3. At least "emo" Peter Parker was more tolerable. TASM2 is painfully and disappointingly average!
5/10 - For some reason, metacritic registered my score as 0 and I can't change it.… Expand
Average User Score: 6.8May 26, 2014Slow burn is great but only if it's rewarding. Godzilla doesn't show up until 40 minutes into the movie. I expected this because GarethSlow burn is great but only if it's rewarding. Godzilla doesn't show up until 40 minutes into the movie. I expected this because Gareth Edwards's "Monsters" isn't really about monsters but at least it's a more ambitious movie with interesting characters. However, the characters in Godzilla are pretty one-dimensional.
Bryan Cranston delivers the best performance in the entire film and it's a shame he was given very little to do. Elizabeth Olsen also gives a solid performance but her character was poorly-written and she's the biggest victim of side-lining. Ken Watanabe is just exposition guy but the worst character was played by Aaron-Taylor Johnson. Johnson never gives the emotional performance needed for his character to be interesting and that's probably because his acting range is limited. Most of his films required him to be somewhat goofy, even in his more dramatic film "Nowhere Boy".
If you're looking for a mindless monster movie with great special effects, Godzilla certainly delivers but only if you're a patient viewer. Otherwise, you'll probably be disappointed that there wasn't enough Godzilla. Even though the best monster movies usually hold the monster back, the uninteresting characters and serviceable plot made me wish there was more Godzilla, or the movie to be 20 minutes shorter.
6/10 - For some reason, metacritic registered my score as 0 and I can't change it.… Expand
Average User Score: 6.0Apr 20, 2014I'm a guy but I thoroughly enjoyed this movie. The performances were great, especially from Channing Tatum and Matthew McConaughey. TheI'm a guy but I thoroughly enjoyed this movie. The performances were great, especially from Channing Tatum and Matthew McConaughey. The screenplay is surprisingly smart, it's essentially a male version of Showgirls but it's more tolerable and skillfully crafted. It's a thoroughly engaging party film (for those who just want the main attraction) as well as an intimate character study (for all movie lovers alike). I recommend this to every girl as well as every guy. Unlike most films, this film has substance beneath the erotic stripping and dancing from the handsome cast of male actors. It's not Soderbergh's best film but it's probably his most enjoyable and commercially successful. Steven Soderbergh directs this film with style and flair, it's not a disappointment!… Expand
Average User Score: 5.9Apr 20, 2014Channing Tatum and Jamie Foxx builds a likable chemistry but the narrative is cliche, there are far too many cheesy moments and the actionChanning Tatum and Jamie Foxx builds a likable chemistry but the narrative is cliche, there are far too many cheesy moments and the action sequences (though enjoyable overall) aren't well-edited. There's another film like it called Olympus Has Fallen which is arguably a little better.… Expand
Average User Score: 6.5Mar 16, 2014It's a shame this film waste such a talent that is Aaron Paul after his performance in one of the greatest TV dramas of all time, BreakingIt's a shame this film waste such a talent that is Aaron Paul after his performance in one of the greatest TV dramas of all time, Breaking Bad. Videos games don't make great films because it's hard to transform a game (especially one that's all about the gameplay like NFS in this case) into a film with a coherent story. Even games with a brilliant storyline (FF) have been unsuccessful in films. I still have high hopes that one day, there will be a good video game adaptation. I heard they're going to adapt AC and TLoU (mostly story-based games) but adapting NFS is like adapting Bejeweled as NFS has never been about story or characters.
I knew this film was going to be bad from the beginning and it's not just because of the "video game adaptations make bad films" trend but because the execution is pure F&F, all sexy sport cars but little on the substances. Alas, and unfortunately, my predictions were right. I've seen far too many movies that I can tell if a film is going to be bad or good just by watching the trailer. NFS film gave away everything in the trailer, and that's always a bad sign. I decided to watch this film anyway, just for Aaron Paul.
The plot is ridiculous, getting revenge on a guy who killed his friend and then framing him (ending up in prison for 2 years) by racing in a cross-country competition against the guy. That's all there is to it plot wise and guess what happens in the end? I won't spoil it for ya but this is as thin as the plot can get and the form of revenge is just so stupid. It would be less nonsensical if he went after and kill the guy but of course, this is a NFS film. Still, you can come up with a better plot that also showcases the film's action sequences and set pieces.
There is very little characterization as there are barely anything we know about the characters except that they all love fast cars. There is no story for any of the characters making them just as stock and cliche like many action movies; one good guy, one bad guy and one girl. It follows a tight formula without making the characters any different than we've seen before.
Although there are a couple of decent action scenes and the cast were strong, there is very little writing and that's precisely the problem with this movie. It doesn't have to be an Oscar winning movie, but a movie about fast cars should be distinct (something F&F have only, and surprisingly, done in their last two movies) because there are far too many of them with the F&F being the most popular. It's a video game adaptation and in no way is this movie a F&F rip-off but because of the execution, it definitely comes off as one. I give it a 2 just for Aaron Paul but no actor could have saved this movie from being a wreck.… Expand
Average User Score: 7.8Feb 24, 2014It's no LOTR but this is certainly much better than the first movie. The high frame rate doesn't annoy me as much, probably because I'm use toIt's no LOTR but this is certainly much better than the first movie. The high frame rate doesn't annoy me as much, probably because I'm use to it now but I wasn't back then when the first movie came out in theatres. Back then it looked more like a video game and there was really no value to it. Sadly, some of the problems from the first movie are still present in this movie. It's like 3 hours long (which would be okay if it wasn't boring half the time) and it's overstuffed with underdeveloped characters. The fact that this movie uses footnotes from many of Tolkien's other novels means that it's not truly faithful to the original source material, too often it diverts away from the main story. Only the devoted Tolkien fans (not me) would get the most out of it but for the uninitiated (me), it just feels like a lot of subplots. There's really no need to extend a short children's book into a trilogy. The only reason for that is to make even more money (obviously 3 is more than 1). The Hobbit trilogy is just Peter Jackson's way of reliving his golden era when the LOTR trilogy was critically and commercially successful, with the last movie winning Best Picture award. This movie would be better off as one movie, or maybe even a two-parter because at least then it would be more faithful to the book. But of course, all the good points in the last movie are present in this movie as well such as the film's visual style, score, special effects and the wonderful performances from the cast. This movie is more action packed than the last one which makes it more enjoyable and stand out as an exciting fantasy adventure in it's own right. I do hate that it's a bit of a disappointment when you compare it to LOTR therefore, I won't be expecting the last movie to meet the same standard (but I do hope it's good). I do understand that the books are very different from each other but Peter Jackson's direction makes the two franchises very similar to each other. He does almost everything he did back when he was directing LOTR so don't b***h about how it's unfair to compare The Hobbit to LOTR. If you're already a fan of the first movie, no doubt you'll enjoy this one.… Expand
Average User Score: 7.5Feb 13, 2014Man of Steel is highly overrated, it's a decent film at best because it's not the definitive Superman movie. Henry Cavill is no ChristopherMan of Steel is highly overrated, it's a decent film at best because it's not the definitive Superman movie. Henry Cavill is no Christopher Reeve but at least he's an improvement over Brandon Routh. It's a long-overdue reboot for the franchise but I'm really disappointed by the lack of character development and the movie spends nearly an hour and a half retelling the origins of Superman that we all know to well. Kal-El is born, Krypton gets destroyed, Kal-El is sent to Earth to save their species, ponders his existence, finds out who and what he is, finds out about his parents and where he comes from, finally has a purpose in life, becomes Superman, saves people, Lois, people generally accepts him. There's really no need to spends hours telling a story that everyone is already familiar with, even the reboot of Spider-Man got the origin story over and done with within minutes and we got to see all the other characters in action. This is the problem with Man of Steel, it spends so much time telling this story that they completely forget about all the other characters in the film; even Lois feels diminished. On the other hand, I do like how the story is told. Whereas most action or superhero movies go from one action sequence to another (which can abruptly interrupt with the story), Man of Steel tells the whole story first before they overload on set pieces and CGI effects. I just don't understand how at the end of the fight, the whole city looks like an apocalypse and they're able to fix it so quickly. But I'm guessing with the help of Superman, anything is possible. The amount of action is absurd and buildings falling down is so cheesy but I enjoyed every minute of it, especially when Zod uses some machine that can lift up cars and smashes them back down (that was pretty epic). But obviously, the special effects doesn't any significance to the film. Overall, it's an above-average film. I was a bit disappointed though because we were long-overdue for a Superman film and I really expected better. Whoever tells you that it's better than the first two Superman films, and even Superman Returns, is lying to you. That's how overrated this movie is because a lot of people would go as far as to say that. Man of Steel is better than Superman 3 and 4 obviously (because those were terrible) but it's the weakest "good" Superman entry in the franchise.… Expand
Average User Score: 6.2Feb 13, 2014The original RoboCop is an uncommonly smart, as well as entertaining, sci-fi/action movie that explore many different themes with it's bitingThe original RoboCop is an uncommonly smart, as well as entertaining, sci-fi/action movie that explore many different themes with it's biting and sharp satire of the American culture. Although there's a lot to enjoy in this new RoboCop, it doesn't add anything worthy to the original and comes off as an unnecessary remake.… Expand