Beardface's stats
- Review count111
- Helpfulness votes16
- First reviewDecember 6, 2009
- Last reviewAugust 31, 2011
- Featured reviews0
- Average rating3.8
Overall rating
4
/
5
Better than the Transporter
PostedFebruary 5, 2011
A well done, well acted action movie. Donald Sutherland maintains his charm and charisma despite his aging. Jason Statham is solidifying himself as the modern day man's man action hero star. Ben Foster is truly an interesting, versatile, multidimensional actor who will be a force in Hollywood worth paying attention to developing his career; I already feel sad for him, as I am sure that he will be overlooked too many times for Oscar recognition, but not so sad as I believe he will likely be a great indicator as to whether or not a movie is worth seeing just by virtue of whether or not he is in it--if he can avoid the trappings of the culture of fame and fortune, only fate will shorten what is destined to be a brilliant career. The movie itself has some great action scenes and a simple but good story line to move the film along. Action fans won't be disappointed.
Yes, I recommend this movie.
Share:
0points
0of 0voted this as helpful.
Overall rating
3
/
5
I thought it was just me.
PostedFebruary 5, 2011
I kept falling asleep on this movie, and I thought it was just because I ate a big lunch. But after reading other reviews I realize that when I did find it to be slow it wasn't just because the sushi was good. The ambition of the movie deserves enough props for me that I'll call what I saw (which really was most of the movie) somewhat impressive. But I can't really encourage others to watch it. Here is why:
1) For a little while 3D is awesome. The scenery really pops, especially with going through the foliage of the mountain or when seeing the mouth of the cave. Then after a while the 3D becomes commonplace and irrelevant, almost to the point of being distracting because, at least for me, there is the constant tug and pull of wanting to appreciate the story vs. wanting to appreciate the 3D (or rather, wanting to feel it was worth the extra money to wear a set of glasses overtop my own glasses for greater than 90 minutes). Then there is the down size of the 3D experience which is the more intensely real sensation of claustrophobia that comes from the premise of the movie itself--the sense that you are in an enclosed space for which you can easily be and stay trapped. Such empathy is good for dealing with those people and situations you confront in real life, but it sucks for entertainment.
2) I am surprised that the movie is only 1 hour 43 minutes long, because it sure felt longer. But then this movie was designed to bring audiences closer to the experience of actually caving, and I feel this goal is well approximated. But like the 3D itself, the experience is hollow and not real: the mundane is boring, the tragic is truly sad and discouraging, and you keep asking yourself "what makes going through this worth it?" This is a good warning to those who would consider caving, or adventure seeking of any sort, without considering the risks> But part of what you want from the film is either motivation to do what you see them do, or a good moral lesson as to why not. What you get here is the sense that people do things that can be dangerous in order to feel alive or maybe just as a way of life, but that at any time bad things will happen, it sucks when it does and you just have to live with it. Like many potentially scary yet common activities one may do in life, you'd question why you would do it if it wasn't normal for you to do or thought to be necessary.
No, I do not recommend this movie.
Share:
0points
0of 0voted this as helpful.
Overall rating
4
/
5
Could be my low expectations, but I liked it.
PostedJanuary 14, 2011
I read some user reviews before watching this movie, and those reviews matched exactly what I feared; consequently, I almost didn't watch this movie. But then movietickets.com was selling the 1200 noon show for the early morning price, so I figured that I could stomach any misstep in curiosity for six bucks. But I only had my AMC entertainment cards to spend (which I don't think you can use via this website) so I had to go to the theater to buy my tickets. What do you know, I was right all along (movietickets.com might have been wrong, or have been undercutting themselves for promotional reasons), and I ended up paying $9. But I was there, so I purchased the tickets, feeling I may later regret it. But to my surprise the movie was fun--both humorous and explosively entertaining--so I personally thought it was worth the money. Clearly it was an homage to Bruce Lee, as Kato was clearly the hero in the film, but just as clearly was unabashedly forced to accept second billing. But this time it wasn't attributed to "happenstance", for you could clearly tell the writers saw some of the 1970's shows and decided to make Kato even more incredible than watching Bruce Lee through the use of CGI, and by through the details of capacity: Kato can't complete a resume enumerating his skills, but he can do anything from making the best cup of cappuccino by a machine he himself built, to appreciating and even playing classical piano, to engineering and building cars and weapons systems, to manipulating chemistry and biology to build bulletproof glass and knockout gas bullets, to mastering martial arts to a point that he can consciously execute moves in his head like a computer playing chess against multiple opponents, to being smooth with the ladies (at least, almost). It makes you think that this is the superhero version of an alternate universe wherein the rock band "Van Halen" is called "Lee Roth" instead. (For those of you too young or too xenophobic to appreciate this reference, I apologize, but despite me myself being black, I am also 38, and Van Halen rocks!). In this universe, Seth Rogen plays David Lee Roth, aka Britt Reed, aka the Green Hornet; he is kind of obnoxious, loud, stupid, and and overall goof ball, but you love him. Also, there are enough solos for the lead guitarist (aka Kato) for you to appreciate who really is behind the genius of the music. I liked this movie, and I didn't waste the time or money to see it in 3D.
Yes, I recommend this movie.
Share:
0points
0of 0voted this as helpful.
Overall rating
3
/
5
It's alright...something to watch...kind of fun.
PostedJanuary 7, 2011
Nicolas Cage needs to stop playing himself all the time, or know that he is doing this so that he will limit himself to roles that are appropriate for him--medieval English he ain't, nor does he come across as so knightly noble. Gone are the days where some level of authenticity is not expected from all parts of the movie--the scenery, the costumes, and yes, the acting. Nicolas Cage isn't bad, he is just not good here. And this is even more apparent when Ron Perlman and the supporting cast so completely out shine Mr. Cage in acting ability. The movie itself has some cool effects, twists and turns, and some decent story lines--that is, to a point. I wish they wouldn't have gone the direction they did, because it seems to betray the title and the expectations the audience may have of the movie (was kind of hoping for some anti Harry Potter vibe, like Daybreakers was anti Twilight). Entertaining for the cheap&early matinee, won't miss much if you wait for the rental, and this definitely won't change anyone's opinion for the better of good old not so saintly Nick.
Yes, I recommend this movie.
Share:
0points
0of 0voted this as helpful.
Overall rating
4
/
5
Well Acted Semi Comedy
PostedJanuary 4, 2011
A well acted movie. It was weird seeing the times the main character was struggling so desperately to overcome his speech impediment, and yet knowing that these are suppose to be the lighter, more comedic parts of the film--some people laughed, and I felt perplexed between wanting to laugh with them at the specifics of the situation, versus wanting to pity him, versus wanting to defend him, versus meanly looking down on him. My mixed emotions are likely testimony to the incredible performance Colin Firth gave. And the supporting actors were amazing also. Helena Bonham Carter remains beautiful through and through--what a pleasure to watch her yet again. Geoffrey Rush plays what he plays, but was impressive in the way he could show submission and humiliate while still being a strong character (how on earth did he not get top billing for this film). Timothy Spall was great to watch as Winston Churchill, even for the few lines he had. All in all a well executed film and a pleasure to watch, but my mixed emotions limited me from giving the film 5 stars.
Yes, I recommend this movie.
Share:
0points
0of 0voted this as helpful.
Overall rating
4
/
5
Maybe not worth all the hype, but still well done
PostedDecember 29, 2010
This was a good movie. Probably the only reason I am not giving it 5 stars was that the discussion of the movie (how it was made, how it compares to Rocky and other boxing/sports movies, how Oscar worthy the acting was, etc.) may have over hyped it for me. Mark Wahlberg was Mark Wahlberg--a limited actor who must be aware of this because he keeps being a part of movies that more often than not are highly entertaining all the while making him look as though he had a lot to do with it despite said limits. Kudos to all the supporting staff, particularly Christian Bale and Melissa Leo--boy did they ever make me feel the love and hate one can have for one's family, as well as make me consider my impact on my own younger brother and his sons. And Amy Adams--who can't love a woman who is strong enough to stand up to your mother and maintain a level of composure. A joy to watch.
Yes, I recommend this movie.
Share:
0points
0of 0voted this as helpful.
Overall rating
4
/
5
Well Done Remake
PostedDecember 23, 2010
I only recently found out that this was a remake of a John Wayne classic. It was really well done, and makes me want to see the first.
In a clip of an interview that Jeff Bridges gave about Hallee Steinfeld, he noted how lucky they were to have her. He said this with much praise, enthusiasm, and graciousness, and yet still had understated how incredible this young lady was in her role. In fact, her capacity to shine in this film underscores the greatness and humility of all the top billed actors--Jeff Bridges, Matt Damon, Josh Brolin, and Barry Pepper--because all of these actors played their roles incredibly well and yet clearly allowed a story about a female teenager's quest to avenge her father's wrongful death be about that and not about how well Jeff Bridges could replace John Wayne or how much of a villain either Barry Pepper's or Josh Brolin's characters could be; and make no mistake, Barry Pepper proves yet again how incredible and incredibly versatile he is as an actor, as does Josh Brolin. This cast was amazing, but Hallee Steinfeld portrayal of Mattie Ross was Oscar worthy and awe inspiring.
The film itself was beautiful to watch. You truly got a sense of the period of which it reflected. The Coen brothers use of dialogue and linguistics has never been better; people spoke as both having a need to have some command of the English language while simultaneously having dubious educations. There was a straightforwardness and/or lack of savvy that was pervasive in all the characters of the film, with a few important, necessary, and notable exceptions--the "grit" of this film was omnipresent.
The film did have the problem of not knowing how or when to end. This was sad to me, because there was more I would've liked to know about the thoughts and attitudes of the teenager (as opposed to that of the adult) Mattie Ross, especially at the end of the quest. The same goes for Jeff Bridges' character. This was a very good film, but not a great one, because the ending wasn't well connected to the rest of the story, and the story I cared about ended abruptly and improperly; I was of the notion that it was incomplete. I felt cheated a little. I wanted more of what enamored me to the film, or at least good closure in that regard, and for me that just didn't happen in the way that the ending was done.
Even still, for people who never saw the original film I imagine that you will be very, very impressed, especially if you like Coen brothers' movies. And it is hard for me to imagine John Wayne fans taking issue with the remake as a whole or with Jeff Bridges in particular; unlike my opinion of his portrayal of the older Flynn in Tron Legacy, I really admired his take on U.S. Marshall "Rooster" Cogburn in this film.
I was excited to see this film, and when I saw it it both met my expectations and substantially entertained me. Well done!
Yes, I recommend this movie.
Share:
0points
0of 0voted this as helpful.
Overall rating
5
/
5
A beautifully done psychological thriller.
PostedDecember 23, 2010
This well crafted and elaborate, almost hyperbolic tale of what it is to be a ballerina truly makes one appreciate the dedication and intensity that the dancers have toward their craft and their profession. I still may avoid the ballet like the plague, but if I was to ever gain interest in it, it would be because of movies like this. Natalie Portman and Mila Kunis were used very well by Darren Aronofsky for this project, and Vincent Cassel truly was superb as an abusive mentor. A very enjoyable film.
Yes, I recommend this movie.
Share:
0points
0of 0voted this as helpful.
Overall rating
3
/
5
Visually stunning, but almost no soul.
PostedDecember 19, 2010
Cool to watch, flawed to consider.
Rules when going to see this movie:
1. Don't think, just watch and enjoy the visuals.
--Seeing or remembering the first movie may not be a good thing because you might be inclined to break this rule. Do this if you want to be entertained.
2. Watch the movie in 3D, but unless the screens and sound are as massive as they are at the Smithsonian theatres, don't bother with IMAX--just a waste of money.
3. Don't try to identify the actors in the movie. You will want to do so, you will likely be successful with some, this may cause you to violate rule 1, and that will take away the pleasure you might derive from this film.
1. Don't think, just watch and enjoy the visuals.
--Seeing or remembering the first movie may not be a good thing because you might be inclined to break this rule. Do this if you want to be entertained.
2. Watch the movie in 3D, but unless the screens and sound are as massive as they are at the Smithsonian theatres, don't bother with IMAX--just a waste of money.
3. Don't try to identify the actors in the movie. You will want to do so, you will likely be successful with some, this may cause you to violate rule 1, and that will take away the pleasure you might derive from this film.
*****Spoiler alert: the following is what I thought of the movie but may give too much away*****
Over twenty years--almost 30 years (wow, I'm getting old)--after the movie "Tron" was made one thing is absolutely certain: a "Tron" sequel may be nice, but it is absolutely unnecessary. And since that is the case, make sure that if you do attempt a Tron sequel that it will take into account the concepts and story original Tron has as well as the likely understanding of technology that even the most modest of intellects are likely to have in 2010. There were Tron toys that were sold after the original movie was released, but no memorable cartoon or tv show or major cult following (like Trekkies or Star Wars fanatics). What remains then are a new generation who never heard of Tron, and an older generation who did who may encourage the younger generation to participate.
As a member of that older generation, I was disappointed with the film. As I said earlier, visually I thought the film was absolutely amazing. Often I find that I grow weary of the 3D craze and think very little of the IMAX outside of the Smithsonian theatres. But for this film I wasn't going to let myself go cheap--I wanted to absorb every nuance this film and its production had to offer. I was one of the kids who, when the film came out, never had a chance to watch it then. I saw and envied all the toys, talked to enough friends and saw enough commercials and clips to get a general gist of the story matter. It was only within the last 2 years that I finally saw the film and realized why I had such nostalgia over it when I had so little access to it initially. It is because the original film embraced so well the thoughts and hopes of the era in which it was shown. Tron was a representation of computer technology and the possibilities that existed in the virtual and digital world. The movie was also about the impact this technology would have, giving rise to concerns over the negative impact of cooperate selfishness and greed on the technology, along with its use and growth; the access others would have to this technology; and the impact that this technology and those who controlled it would have on the world's future. What's more it touched on the possibility that we would be in the same position God is to us, but we may not be as wise or as knowledgeable as to what the needs of our creation may be, or what to do if that creation attempts to or is able to go beyond our means of control. The original movie showed us the author's and director's vision, but also allowed us to use our imaginations and our own knowledge to fill in the gaps were the movie didn't complete or address a concept.
This movie fails to emulate it's predecessor these ways, relying heavily or costumes and CGI to replace story, parable, and possibility.
First, the premise for why the story exists is weak. If you got a text message from someone you thought had been missing for 2 years or more, would you really think that message was real. If you did, and you cared about that person, would you then just kind of pass along that message to someone you think is closer to that person, so that maybe that person may look into it? These type of questions make this movie difficult to appreciate, because they keep begging more questions that were probably never considered by the writer(s) and will likely never be answered because it is hard to imagine a Tron 3.
Second it was hard to appreciate the movie's concept of physical&electrical reality. I don't mind when things are full of fantasy, as long as the fantasy is consistent in a way that allows the laws of reality in the fantasy world to work. For example, I can appreciate a body being transformed from a physical body to a body of energy. But once that body is energy, it's hard for me to imagine that body bleeding or needing normal food in an energy state. Even the original Tron addresses this by allowing the programs and Flynn to drink from an energy stream, and by allowing Flynn to be more akin to a program physically while in the virtual world. The idea of them having or needing dinner is hard to appreciate, but if they do, then like all biological creatures waste products need to be discarded; it's hard for me to imagine no one needing to stop to urinate if they can bleed in a virtual, energy based world. It is then possible for me to imagine a physical body being converted to an energy body and then back to its original form; but this movie goes a step further and assumes that a body made of energy would necessarily be transformed into a viable physical creation that would also be human (or just suitable and capable of existing in a physical world in any manner) without any conscious programming being involved. In fact this movie pushes hard an idea of evolution that seems so far fetched that you must be high like the hippy Kurt Russell seemed to portray in order to believe that what was happening was within the realm of possibility. What's more, there does seem to be a evolution vs. creation undercurrent flowing in this movie amidst a God vs. Satan and a Greek god vs greek god son drama that manifests in a western twist of a Buddhist philosophy thing happening here. If that sentence made you think "huh...what?" then you know how I felt. in addition to that, I felt a sense of the movie violating the concepts of psychology and sociology one would imagine a computer generated being, or a human being, doing. The motivations of Flynn, his son Sam, his friend in the real world (I keep forgetting his name), Tron, and CLU all seem off base, all seem artificial, or better stated, inorganic to the situation that the story line presents.
Third, the ideas of where computers are now and what they are capable of doing now in a very real way seems to be lost. This leads to a further loss of what they may be capable of doing, even though the movie has this as one of its subplots. Again, fantasy is not used to underscore what is real and what may be potentially real (but utter incredible) in the future. The better part of the movie was focused on making everything look visually impressive, as though graphics are all that matters when people consider computers. Also this aside, why do people bother to make male and female characters with computer programs and robots and then not bother addressing why that it useful (for anything other than eye candy) to a digital world.
Fourth there were multiple great and recognizable male actors in this film. 1) Why weren't there any readily recognizable women?2) Why bother getting such high caliber actors (all of whom did a great job, including Kurt Russell, despite what I said earlier) without having a tighter script? And 3) Why are all these actors in the film wiling to do what they are told instead of presenting characters that are likely. Why would a program, for example, ever try to be mean or intimidating, or cautious and afraid (for themselves and for others), at least without prompting or without more explanation? Why also make an effort to make 3 types of sentient beings in their virtual world when 2 function pretty much the same way?
Anyway, I think I've said enough. If you've read this far, then I offer you my apologies if at any time you wanted to see the film more than you wanted to get my opinion of it. Sadly, this is another fun waste of time movie that will likely only be remembered by hardcore sci fi fans and toy collectors.
Yes, I recommend this movie.
Share:
-1point
0of 1voted this as helpful.
Overall rating
3
/
5
Probably cool for kids and parents.
PostedDecember 15, 2010
This one was a little boring to me. The 3D didn't add anything to it for me either. But there were lots of good moral lessons, space for children to use their imaginations both within and outside of the movie, and many nice costumes. Don't want to go so far as to say it was a bad movie, just wouldn't recommend it. If you see it, do see it on the big screen--the characters need to physically be bigger than life for you to feel that way about them from the film. Also, it's not really special enough on its own, but maybe worth owning if you've collected the other two movies on dvd/bluray.
No, I do not recommend this movie.
Share:
0points
0of 0voted this as helpful.