I love a good western and this was a pretty decent one. The dialogue was on point and got quite a few laughs. You get attached to the characters early on as well. But somehow with all the good stuff going on I was waiting for the REAL story to begin and then suddenly we were at the climax. So it was never ever boring and I enjoyed it, but I'm not sure how the pacing of the story didn't let the story move from really good into the excellent zone. I just know it didn't happen..................................................
This happened in a few seconds but there was one creepy part when Matt Dillon's character says he almost snuck a kiss....like his character was scripted to be a much younger character or she a much older one. That needs an explanation better than 'young girls got married at that age back in the day' Why? Because in NOWADAYS a 14 year old is a child--and the implication of a possible romance took me right out of my suspended-disbelief for a moment.......................................................
But back to the dialogue again. It really was great. I know I missed some of it with Bridges using that growling, gravely, hard-drinking voice for the character but there was so much to enjoy that I didn't feel like I missed any one-liners or sarcasm that I HAD to get this first time out. It only means that there's more to look forward to when I see it again on DVD.
Takers has plenty of action and a pretty good plot even though you know before you even arrive at the theater where the all heist movies are ultimately headed. It's a fun summer flick...and it doesn't hurt that nearly all the actors are GQ-Model-ish easy on the eyes.
The hand held shaky camera thing is hot in Hollywood right now--I'm sooo ready for that to be over--was irritating. And I would have cast the baddest bad guy less obviously. But other than that TAKERS hits most of the notes it's trying to play just right. You get just enough back story on (all but one of) the characters to care about what happens to them and it's very worth your time to watch and see who's left standing.
Yes, I recommend this movie.
Share:
0points
0of0voted this as helpful.
Overall rating
3/ 5
Previews gave away too much
PostedAugust 21, 2010
DebP7
from San Pedro, CA
I thought it was pretty cute. Serious in the right spots. But I really couldn't enjoy the ride because I already knew how the major conflict ends...I'd already seen it in the previews.
You wouldn't think that was a factor in a comedy...but it really was. This might play a lot better on DVD when the previews have been forgotten.
I went to see this expecting the flimsiest of plot lines and a lot of action. The action met expectations by a wide margin and the plot surpassed expectations. It was a fun flick. And that's all it was supposed to be.
Walk in thinking “war epic” and you’ll be disappointed. Eastwood's movies about WW II were about the war itself as people experienced it. Miracle at St. Anna is about the characters--fighting for American ideals that don’t apply because their skin’s the wrong color *Failure to make this distinction is one reason why movie reviewers everywhere are reviewing the wrong movie (Too long if U don't relate) *A broader theme concerns how all nationalities go from being sure they’re on God’s side to having some real faith *This is not a movie for people who like neat, linear story lines either. The cutesy bits aside, this story is more like real-life. It wanders around. What’s remembered are the high-lights Good thing this flick had plenty
I liked this movie a lot. Some people in the theater even clapped at the end. But the reason I was able to enjoy it is due to my skipping the previews and letting the story unfold before me. I didn't hit the theater thinking I was going to see a good versus evil shoot-em-up. And it's a good thing too.
Hancock is about a super hero who needs to find himself. This is NOT another action/adventure superhero movie. Anyone who goes to see THIS movie looking for THAT movie is going to be disappointed.
In fact, this is so NOT that movie...eh...there's nearly no villain. And this is the story's worst flaw. Adding a baddie that people love to hate would have taken this movie from reasonably cute (with a weakish ending) to really good. And it would have done so without taking a thing away from Hancock's personal journey.
The X-men trilogy started out much weaker than this, so I hope we see Hancock again.