Reviews

view:  full / summary

Breaking Dawn Part 2 by John

Posted by whokilledthemessanger on November 22, 2012 at 12:50 AM Comments comments (1)

This weekend, I was transported into the magical world of the “Twilight Saga” which was spectacular as always. The last movie in this series that I watched was the first one.... and as far as I can remember, it was okay. The thing about that movie, which surprised me, was that it was not horrible. As I remember it was actually okay, nothing special and very forgettable, but not a bad movie. The same goes for this movie for the most part… though some aspects of it were undoubtedly terrible.

One of the things that I liked about this movie is that it did not try to take itself to seriously. It has a few somewhat funny parts… and the movie does not try to be an epic, save for a few moments around the climax. Some of the jokes work, but just as many fall flat.

Another thing that annoyed me about the movie was that almost every scene in this movie looked like the backgrounds were green screened in. Usually the shots are one focused on the actors, and nothing else. Most of the shots felt kind of empty, and at the backgrounds even reminded me of “Birdemic: Shock and Terror” which is not a good thing.

The special effects on the whole weren’t to bad, but everything looked so fake and computerized that it just felt like watching the effects in “Disaster Movie” or “Vampires suck” which doesn’t say much for this movie’s 131 million dollar budget. Every thing just feels and looks to cartoonish, it just seems so fake, but it got the job done well enough.

To be honest my favorite part of this movie didn’t actually happen. Towards the end of the movie, there’s a really big fight scene between basically the good guy group of vampires, (Bella, Edward, Werewolves, other various vampires) and the Volturi (The bad guys); the group in charge of keeping vampires hidden, and enforcing rules and so on.

But anyways, the two groups fight it out in a sequence that’s actually quite gory, as well as entertaining. Blood is spilled; main characters are killed, though apparently, this part was not in the book. But sadly it turns out that in an M. Night Shymalan moment; this was only a vision of the future, what would have happened if they were to fight, that the Ashley Greene Vampire was showing the leader of the Volturi, needless to say this persuaded the Volturi not to fight

This was very disappointing for me, not only because this was by far the best part of the movie, but it also extinguished what little plot this movie had. Making this movie a very anticlimactic end, to in what was my opinion a very poor “Saga”. Still, I’m sure that its niche audience, of tween and teenage girls, and older more middle-aged women (I saw plenty at the theater), will enjoy this movie. Personally I would say it is almost passable, maybe just a little less than average.

Critical 2/5 poor craftsmanship, not much of a plot, nothing really happens

Enjoyable 2.5/5 some funny parts, decent fight scene

Skyfall (2012) by John

Posted by whokilledthemessanger on November 13, 2012 at 9:00 AM Comments comments (0)

Hello, for those of you who do not know me, this is John Shutika writing. I have collaborated with Isaiah on most of the movies posted on this site, and I figured that I should write a couple reviews… so that he won’t feel so lonely.

Anyways, the movie that I just back from seeing, was “Skyfall”, the latest installment in the Bond franchise. This movie also marks the 50-year anniversary of Bond...which is referenced constantly throughout the movie. These references would usually appear with blaring trumpets, just to make sure that everyone gets it. Despite this though, the movie was actually very good.

The movie knew what it was, an action movie… and at that it very much succeed. It was exciting, it had stupid one-liners, and it actually had a pretty decent villain, played by Javier Bardem. Better known as the creepy guy from “ No Country for Old Men”, but I thought that he was much more hilarious as the love interest from “Eat Pray Love”.

Anyways, the movie was actually quite good, and I think that it will appeal to most people, as well as make a killing in the box office. The craftsmanship, for what I can tell was good… nothing that really mystified me. The fight scenes were well choreographed, and everything was pretty well shot, but as far as it goes, it’s nothing special for a big budget movie. It was made, to make money… to be a blockbuster, which is what it will be. But the cinematography was nothing-special… nothing that would surprise you.

Despite its flaws, which were all clichés for the most part, this movie is still very enjoyable. Bond is given some back-story, and seems to return to his roots. This time Daniel Craig plays a more dynamic character. An over the hill secret agent who has to overcome some challenges, but in the end of course, he just returns to normal. But for what its worth, he is very likeable in this role.

On the whole, I would definitely say that this movie is worth watching. Spending ten dollars to go see, maybe not if you absolutely hate the genre, but most people would probably love this movie. I liked it, and its one of the best action movies to come out this year, a very good movie.

 


Critical

4.5/5

Personal

4.5/5

Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland (2010) By Isaiah

Posted by whokilledthemessanger on September 18, 2012 at 7:05 PM Comments comments (0)

Tim burtain is great. Anyone who wants to debate me on this point should first go watch Edward Scissorhands or  Ed Wood. He is a man inspired by great monster movies, like myself, and is just very well educated in film in general. However, his remakes leave a lot to be desired. To be fair, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was a good attempt. I like that he at least added to the story, but at the same time stayed true to it unlike some other remakes (*cough cough* House of Wax (2005) *cough*). And with Alice in Wonderland, he did the same thing. But i do have some major concerns with it. One, and i know everyone has already said this, if its going to be a sequil to the Disney movies, at least call it a different name! Perhaps, he was infering that it was a sequil to the books, Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, and Alice Through the Looking Glass. I don't really know, nor does it matter that much, as it doesn't effect the movie in any way. Now the other things, like Anne Hathaway's acting, are a totally different matter. 

Thats right, I didn't like the acting in this. Not just Anne Hathaway's acting either, but really everyone's. I suppose you could argue the redheaded dude at the beggining was funny and interesting, and Mia Wasikowska wasn't too bad as Alice, but everyone else just seemed to take a break from good acting. Maybe this is just me. I am not an actor, i have heard it's a lot harder than i claim it is, and I don't doubt that, but some people just overacted or really underacted in this movie. Anne Hathaway as the White Queen especially annoyed me. Not so much her speach, which wasn't too bad, but her body language was just aweful! Every two seconds she had to remind the audiance that she was "royalty" and "dainty" which would be fine, if it didn't involve keeping your hands in dainty little pinches at all times. 

Besides all I said about the acting, overall whats wrong with this movie? Well for one thing, I really dislike movies that rely totally on CG to tell their story. But, I actually felt this movie used it very effectivly. It did have a story, there was some decent charactor development with Alice, and everyone else (including the CG people) genuinly did seem like interesting charactors. Another really great thing in this movie, and possibly one of the most interesting, is the use of very diverse coustumes, and really interesting colors. By that I mean, in the real world everythin is desaturated and washed out shades of pale blue (not just the outfits but the world itself) but when Alice sees wonderland for the first time, its this vibrant, colorful world. Its very similar to The Wizard of Oz in a way, in that it starts off dull and normal, and goes into this crazy foil of a world. So i'm not going to criticize it on those fronts, but i will say that i thought it was half an hour too long. There is so much bantering in this movie about whether or not alice can defeat the Jabberwock, or if she is alice, your head will just explode. Most of it is compleatly unnecessary. And the other thing I really disliked (and this is extremly nit-picky) was the continuety in regard to the previous stories. 

Assuming that this film took place in the Lewis Caroll universe, and not the Disney one, then the White queen and the Queen of Hearts are in totally different universes. In the movie, Helena Bonham Carter is never specifically called the Queen of Hearts, always the Red Queen, but she is shown having an army of cards, and all of her decorations are hearts. Well which one is it? The Red Queen was a chess peice and the Queen of Hearts was a playing card! The White queen in this movie is obviously a chess peice, but the Red Queen is very difficult to decide. 

Long story short, it has an okay story, with okay charactor development. It has okay acting, and okay continuety. It is a very average movie, and not Tim Burtain's best work


Entertainment ****   -1 for the continuety, but the rest for being visually pleasing

Critical **1/2 -2.5 for bad acting, and mediocre everything else

House of Wax (1953) by Isaiah

Posted by whokilledthemessanger on August 27, 2012 at 11:05 AM Comments comments (0)

I love Vincent Price. This doesn't come as a suprise to anyone that knows me very well. I love the macabre, Edgar Allan Poe, Time Burtain and of course, classic chillers. This is a movie that really has it all for me. I like the sets, the coustumes, the camera angles, and the acting! All around this is a great, classic movie to me. Now you as a reader may be wondering, "why is that Isaiah? Why are you correct, as you always are?" well strange person reading a small websites review section, which has 5 hits, its great because of the story, as all great movies are. 

The story begins with Vincent price as the owner of a wax museum. He is a fantastic sculpter of wax, but because he refuses to include a chamber of horrors, his museum isn't as popular as some other people's. Because of this, he can't pay his bills that month for the museum. He tells the realator that he will buy him out, because he's going to sell the museum anyway, to a different person. Quite rudly, the other person dissagrees, and instead sets the place on fire for its insurance. This upsets Vincent Price, because his charactor is also locked inside to watch his creations melt. 

What follows is a really cool, and creepy scene. Vincent Price is mortified, especially when he sees his prize creation, Marie Antoinette erupting irreplably into flames. This scene is one of my favorites of the movie, and leaves a lot to the viewers imagination, in addition to showing us exactly what happens. It also acts as a catylist for the rest of the film's events. Shortly after this we see the realitor and his suitor dead. Killed by someone with a hideously deformed and burnt face. We assume that this is Vincent Price, but we later see him completly alive, with nothing but his hands burnt. 

I cant tell you anymore, but i can tell you that this movie has an excellent twist ending, with a little cornieness. The only thing about this movie that i really dislike is the ending, but you'll have to decide that for yourself. 

Fun:  ****1/2 - 4 1/2 out of 5

Critical: ****   4 out of 5


Rss_feed