YOUR RECENT MOVIE REVIEW

My review for the HBO mini series John Adams

This 7 part Mini Series, (approx 9 hour long), is an excellently acted and historically honest depiction of one of the primary founders of America and the trials he and this country had to go through. Paul Giamatti plays the second president of the United States and we see him first as the lawyer who defended the british troops who fired and created the Boston Massacre and follow him from there on throughout the entirety of the revolution. We see him in Philadelphia as he desperately tries to get votes to declare independence from the British, we see him select George Washington as General of America's Army and then we see him struggle to win the support of France.
Adams is shown as a politically shrewd man who's pride often gets the better of him and indeed if not for his wife, Abigail Adams, played by Laura Linney, he would likely have not gone nearly as far as he had. Abigail is the rock in John's life and the relationship between the two is portrayed excellently and believably throughout the show.
All principal characters in the story of America's founding are to be found somewhere in this mini series but they do not all play terribly large roles in the mini series. For example George Washington is seen in 3 episodes and is more a side character due to this story being about John Adams.
I would give this mini series a 10/10. If you enjoy American history this is a must see.

John Rambo (Rambo IV):


We are all guilty of judging a movie by it's cover. When I saw Rambo IV in the pre-viewed $3 bin at a local store I rolled my eyes. I nudged my buddy - a 6'7 300+lb military weapons specialist and brought it to his attention. "Dude," he said, "That's a fucking deal - you will love it - hell - I'll even buy that shit for you". So I figured what the hell - and gave it a watch.

Being a huge fan of zombie, horror, and low budget shockers (think Troma), I've seen more gore and blood on the screen than most folks should. I'm also a big fan of war movies - but also highly critical of them.

Rambo IV was a action-war movie with zombie-gore.

The directing and photography was well selected. Very desaturated colors form an environment that seems foreboding and evil - a suiting choice for the humid jungles and third-world villages of Burma.

Without getting into plot lines, Rambo IV does something very blatent and typical in action movies - but does it very well. It starts by disgusting you with graphic scenes of innocent humans being slaughtered, intersperced with dull dialogue, acting, and a typical internal struggle for the movies hero. The scenes are so graphic (such as young children being shot and slowly bayoneted) and the actions are so uncivilized (like rape and senseless murder), that it is disturbing. I found myself thinking how horrible people could be. After seeing a village wiped out, walking out of the theatre or stopping the movie and watching Wheel Of Fortune isntead, is impossible. The viewer becomes sucked into the movie, demanding revenge - invested in wanting to see the tables turn on the offenders. And when those tables turn... the gore and the action gets turned from high to full blast - making it enjoyable (not just visually but also emotionally), to see soldiers receive gaping chest wounds from a .50 cal, arrows through the skull, and limbs removed like twigs - in other words - exactly 'what they deserve'. While there is a plot line and some sense of character development - I found them to be irrelevent - this movie is about on thing: the legendary John Rambo kicking some fucking bad-guy ass. On that - it delivers.

a.) is it worth paying for
On DVD, probably for cheap. If you can find for 3 bucks like I did, buy it.

b.) overall opinion
8.5/10

c.) good overall story/plot/idea
7/10
It's been done before, but done fairly well.

d.) good acting
5/10
Good acting wouldn't have done much for this movie. It relied (wisely) elsewhere. If we are considering stuntmen and extras, boost it to a 8/10. Considering Stallone is fucking ancient (he's gotta be pushing mid 60's?), the man looks about as badass as ever, and though he isn't a very good actor, he delivers the action.

e.) special effects
9/10
Seriously pushed the envelope of war/action movie gore for me. I've seen it all before - but it was executed very well in this movie.

f.) language and adult themes
I would keep this as far away from children as possible.

Stallone is very close to my own age. Maybe a year and 1/2 older or so. I've liked all his Rambo movies. Never was that fond of his Rocky run though.

Quantum of Solace

James Bond is back.

Action from pretty much the first 20 seconds of the film all the way through to the end.

This James Bond -as you may or may not already know- is the tougher, former SAS British Commando Bond. He's different in that he doesn't obsess over every hair in place. Also, unlike previous Bond characters, he does occasionally take a punch or kick, and even close gunshot or knife wounds. Previous Bonds never got a scratch on them, and were more the suave type, rather than the "in-your-face" commando. Pierce Brosnan- a previous Bond- was the "put some more gel in my hair" type, where as Daniel Craig -the current Bond- is the "got shot, but I can walk it off" type of Bond.

Also unlike previous Bond characters, this one gets very, very violent. The kind of violent that makes a guy like Bond actually believable. There's one scene where Bond subdues a man with something that looks like a pair of scissors. Repeatedly plunging it into the villain, it takes a few tries before Bond finally triumphs with a good shot in the villain's neck. In another case, he casually throws the body of his fallen comrade into a dumpster, but not before taking the cash out of his wallet. He never flinches. This is the kind of hardened killer that Bond needs to be if he is going to be believable.


The special effects are getting better with every Bond film, and this one is no exception. A little bit light on the story line, and not as intriguing as previous films, but still keeps you on the edge of your seat. Curiously absent of any clever gadgetry, as well as the almost cliche Bond womanizing. He doesn't sleep with the fine female co-star, but somehow the film is still satisfying- and perhaps more respectable.


a.) is it worth paying for?
Yes. DVD, Blu Ray preferably, or in the theater if you can still find it there.

b.) overall opinion
9/10

c.) good overall story/plot/idea
7/10

d.) good acting
9/10 The acting actually carried much of the film.

e.) special effects
Superb

f.) language and adult themes
Not for kids under 18


Summary: Worth it.

"X-Men Origins: Wolverine"

It is due in theaters on May 1st and if you enjoy action mutant intrigue you will definitely want to catch this movie. There are very few dull moments and plenty of surprises.

The Day The Earth Stood Still

The movie got a 5.5 or 5.6 out of a possible 10 at IMDB.

I didn't know why until yesterday.

So here's the real deal on it: Awesome special effects, great story,
great message although not even slightly subtle about it.

The huge gaping hole in this movie was the portrayal of the military.
They were just like the military in the old 1970's Incredible Hulk.
They behave with very little sophistication or direction. It is always
"hey, I have this tank, let me shoot the gun for no apparent reason",
or "me have missile go BOOM!". When Sir Edmund Hillary was asked why he
climbed Mt. Everest, he replied "because it is there". And in this
film, anywhere there is a military person with a gun, bomb, or missile,
if you were to ask why they fired off a shot, they would have roughly
the same response as Sir Edmund Hillary.

a.) is it worth paying for?
Yes. DVD, Blu Ray preferably, or in the theater if you can still find it there.

b.) overall opinion
7/10

c.) good overall story/plot/idea
7/10 (this being a remake, I would attribute the plot to the ORIGINAL)

d.) good acting
5/10 The lead actors were 8/10, but all the automaton generic military people were 2/10 with their ridiculous and pointless lack of sophistication.

e.) special effects
7/10 Very good, but I've seen better.

f.) language and adult themes
Not for kids under 18


Summary: I would say if you can watch it on Blu Ray, you'll get to see it at its best. The effects towards the last 28 minutes are spectacular. And at a little more than one hour and a half, that is nearly a third of the film.

The acting was good in a movie with Keanu Reeves in it???

JB has a terrible taste in movies.

Star Trek

An absolutely kickass Star Trek movie (finally!), and you don't even have to be a hardcore Original Series fan to enjoy it. In fact, it helps, because it's an alternate timeline splitting off on the day of James Kirk's birth. So not only is it before everything we've seen before, the future is uncertain as well.

A) Is it worth paying for?
Absolutely. I've seen it twice, once opening night and then again on an IMAX screen (it wasn't shot for IMAX, but it was incredible none the less).

B) Overall opinion.
9.5/10. Would have been higher if McCoy and Scotty had bigger parts.

C) Overall plot/story/idea.
I liked it. It's Star Trek, with all of the associated baggage, but the writers managed to avoid a remake or rehashing by using the "alternate timeline" schtick. This adds to the tension by stripping the certainty that anyone would survive just because you saw them in the original episodes.

D) Good acting.
Incredible. Pine and Urban nailed Kirk and McCoy without coming across as mocking Shatner and Kelley. This may be blasphemy, but I think Simon Pegg's Scotty is almost better than James Doohan's. My only real complaint is Zachary Quinto as Spock. He did well, but I think his Vulcan facade cracks a little much for my liking. Yeah, Spock is half human, but still.

Oh, yeah, and Anton Yelchin's accent as Chekov is pretty thick, comedically so at one point.

E) Special effects.
Great effects. I like the new phasers and the more industrial feel of the Engineering decks. We've come a long way from painting lines on the film reels. Warp space was pretty good, too.

F) Language and adult themes.
Fist fights, gunfights, and blowing spaceships up take care of the violence aspect. I didn't notice much language (aside from the near-obligatory "God dammit Jim!") but I won't promise it wasn't there. Also, 11/10 for Cadet Gaila, the Orion cadet Kirk is dating at one point.

Stand by me.

four kids are about to travell on a three day long journey just to see a corps.

That is frigging awesome. i love that movie. i haven't read the book. but eitherway i believe that is the best adventure i have ever seen.

Otherwise i like lion king and the beast and the beauty by walt disney

Night Stryker wrote:Star Trek

An absolutely kickass Star Trek movie (finally!), and you don't even have to be a hardcore Original Series fan to enjoy it. In fact, it helps, because it's an alternate timeline splitting off on the day of James Kirk's birth. So not only is it before everything we've seen before, the future is uncertain as well.

A) Is it worth paying for?
Absolutely. I've seen it twice, once opening night and then again on an IMAX screen (it wasn't shot for IMAX, but it was incredible none the less).

B) Overall opinion.
9.5/10. Would have been higher if McCoy and Scotty had bigger parts.

C) Overall plot/story/idea.
I liked it. It's Star Trek, with all of the associated baggage, but the writers managed to avoid a remake or rehashing by using the "alternate timeline" schtick. This adds to the tension by stripping the certainty that anyone would survive just because you saw them in the original episodes.

D) Good acting.
Incredible. Pine and Urban nailed Kirk and McCoy without coming across as mocking Shatner and Kelley. This may be blasphemy, but I think Simon Pegg's Scotty is almost better than James Doohan's. My only real complaint is Zachary Quinto as Spock. He did well, but I think his Vulcan facade cracks a little much for my liking. Yeah, Spock is half human, but still.

Oh, yeah, and Anton Yelchin's accent as Chekov is pretty thick, comedically so at one point.

E) Special effects.
Great effects. I like the new phasers and the more industrial feel of the Engineering decks. We've come a long way from painting lines on the film reels. Warp space was pretty good, too.

F) Language and adult themes.
Fist fights, gunfights, and blowing spaceships up take care of the violence aspect. I didn't notice much language (aside from the near-obligatory "God dammit Jim!") but I won't promise it wasn't there. Also, 11/10 for Cadet Gaila, the Orion cadet Kirk is dating at one point.

I'm going to see this on this weekend.

Just got back from Star Trek - I second NS's review.

I posted this over at big hollywood and won't be arsed to make a completely new review. My verdict - go see terminator salvation on the big screen this summer, its a fun experience.

The fact that the Big Hollywood reviewer enjoyed T3 should let everyone know just how off base his review of Terminator Salvation was. I am not saying that Salvation is even in the same league as T2, that film was an truly great film. Salvation is a summer action film with stylistic camera work and plenty of easter eggs for nerds of the franchise to sqeal about in delight, (such as how John Conner gets his facial scars or the same song playing on John Conners dirt bike in T2 is played again in Salvation). The action set pieces are superb, particularly a single take in a helicopter near the beginning. The characters are not the deepest you would ever experience but this is more a war film then a standard terminator film which would only have 2 or 3 human characters; this is the war against machines and as such there will be a much larger cast and with a larger cast getting to know characters intimately will take a hit. Some people have complained that the film is too dour and without humor which I feel is a bit silly, we are supposed to take the film as a realistic film and as such people are not going to be having fun as they try to survive on road kill while hiding from massive machines that have wiped out everyone else on Earth. Overall I would give this film a 8/10. It is what it is, an action film. Don't expect oscar worthy drama, don't expect a comedy. it is a gritty action film.

I also saw Star Trek yesterday, sneaking into films FTW, and I can say that I enjoyed the first half of the film but felt that the ending was unengaging. I don't know what it is about Star Trek action scenes but they are always so bland; perhaps it has to do with the fact that you know who will die and who won't. Of course I could say the same about Star Wars but I enjoy the early star wars films so I am not sure why the Star Trek action scenes don't do it for me. But it was still the best Star Trek film I have ever seen and the first act and mid way through the second felt almost like a steven spielberg film

Quick review of Spike Jone's "Where the Wild Things Are"


It fucking sucked ass. Some 15 page books just aren't meant to be shoved into 2 hours of film. This was one of them.

Avoid this movie. Also, your kids will hate it too.

Best movie I've seen lately was Cirque du Freak: the vampire's Apprentice.

An entirely different approach to the entire vampire genre. However be warned if the only reason you watch movies is for blood and gore and or tits and ass, this has very little of either.

The acting was - according to my wife who was a speech and drama major in college - superb. Surprisingly so given that one of the main charatcers was played by Will Farrells sidekick in most of his movies and generally speaking I'd rather be shot at than watch a will farrell movie.

Not much of a movie watcher in the last few years but did rent
Precious---powerful performances
Edge of Darkness (?) the new Mel Gibson movie - very good
Avitar--- story line predictable but good, wish I had seen it in 3D. It was pretty darned good on a 42" TV.