RelayerDoug's stats
- Review count60
- Helpfulness votes22
- First reviewOctober 26, 2008
- Last reviewAugust 7, 2013
- Featured reviews0
- Average rating3.8
Overall rating
4
/
5
A worthy sequel in just about every way.
PostedAugust 7, 2013
RelayerDoug
from San Diego
Age:55 to 64
Gender:Male
Goes to the movies:weekly
Dialogue
2
/
5
Special Effects
5
/
5
Art Direction
5
/
5
Acting
4
/
5
Story
4
/
5
Camerawork
5
/
5
The first Percy Jackson movie landed readily onto my Guilty Pleasures list of films...as will this one, for virtually identical reasons. My ONLY gripes about this film (and they're small ones) are that, like in the first movie, the dialogue occasionally gets a little amateurish, like you'd hear on a sub-par Afternoon Special movie, and the story line occasionally settles for being a little silly instead of being as serious as it should. This is not to say that I wasn't against the moments of humor in the film--they were well-executed and released a few genuine LOLs. For me, it was also sad not to see Pierce Brosnan back for another ride...he added a lot of charisma to the first film, but again, a small complaint in the grand scheme.
And without giving any specific examples (since it would be far too easy to give too much of the film away), let it be said that if you enjoyed the first film, I believe you will find this one to be of equal or greater value. Seeing it in 3D is an added pleasure, as it genuinely enhances the camera work, art direction and off-the-chart CGI effects. So yeah, I'd say give yourself a treat and check it out.
Pros great story, cgi effects
Cons dialogue lapses, occasional corniness
Share:
0points
0of 0voted this as helpful.
Overall rating
1
/
5
Save your money.....
PostedMay 1, 2013
RelayerDoug
from San Diego
Age:55 to 64
Gender:Male
Goes to the movies:weekly
Dialogue
1
/
5
Art Direction
1
/
5
Acting
1
/
5
Story
1
/
5
.....unless, of course, you're a dyed-in-the-wool, conservative Bible thumper--yet another Jeezus movie sneaked into mainstream theaters, and an unbelievably poorly-acted one at that. If these "Christian filmmakers" were actually capable of putting out quality cinema, then reviews like this wouldn't be necessary. The subject matter was what drew me to it in the first place, and within the first 5 minutes it was apparent I'd been suckered in by the Save Your Soul Society again. (Some of these "filmmakers" must think that slapping a PG-13 rating on their product will draw more unsuspecting people into their gooey little webs...pretty pathetic.)
Cons bad acting, horrific script
No, I do not recommend this movie.
Share:
0points
0of 0voted this as helpful.
Overall rating
5
/
5
Another incredible Cruise sci-fi effort.
PostedApril 26, 2013
RelayerDoug
from San Diego
Age:55 to 64
Gender:Male
Goes to the movies:weekly
Dialogue
5
/
5
Special Effects
5
/
5
Art Direction
5
/
5
Acting
5
/
5
Story
5
/
5
Camerawork
5
/
5
One thing about Tom Cruise: if, as a movie-goer, you can look past the fact that he's turned into a Scientology loony, there's really no denying the fact that, IMHO, he's made many more great movies than flops. The guy's always been an underrated actor, from the moment I first saw his supporting role in TAPS up until this, his newest release. I would agree with anyone who says that if you liked MINORITY REPORT, the chances are good that you'll like this film. And for me, it's always a real treat when a sci-fi film actually tells a deep, meaningful story, and the special effects & action sequences take a back seat, serving only to enhance the telling of said story.
Everything about this film appealed to me greatly, and I can find no fault with it. As others have mentioned, it falls into the category of keeps-you-guessing-until-the-end, which always adds a strong element of thrill to witnessing the unfolding of plot. When great acting, a good script, a good cast & good direction are added to that, you inevitably have a sci-fi film that steps outside the box and gives audiences credit for their intelligence, leaving them with a feeling of awe & wonder upon leaving the movie theater. I recommend OBLIVION unconditionally for all who love unique, sophisticated & thought-provoking science fiction.
Pros well paced, great story, great actors
Yes, I recommend this movie.
Share:
+1point
1of 1voted this as helpful.
Overall rating
5
/
5
Thoroughly entertaining in every way!
PostedMarch 23, 2013
RelayerDoug
from San Diego
Age:55 to 64
Gender:Male
Goes to the movies:weekly
Dialogue
4
/
5
Special Effects
5
/
5
Art Direction
5
/
5
Acting
4
/
5
Story
5
/
5
Camerawork
5
/
5
There was some rumbling in Hollywood circles (and understandably so) as to whether this film could possibly do justice to the classic from 1939 we all love. My OWN personal misgiving was James Franco being picked for the starring role...much as I like his performances in other films (TRISTAN & ISOLDE, PINEAPPLE EXPRESS), this just didn't seem like the wisest choice...was he the best they could do? (As it turned out, he didn't disappoint at all.) Regardless, take note: this incredible film DOES do TWOO proud...in spades. It's apparent pretty much from the get-go that the makers of this aptly-dubbed "instant classic" took their time and a great deal of love in the making of this very entertaining, heartwarming, not goofy, not-just-for-kids trip down the Yellow Brick Road. With today's technology, it is, needless to say, jaw-dropping in its use of special effects...add to this the fine acting of the cast, a well-written & executed script & the frequent humor & you've got an absolutely GREAT movie-going experience here. You'll miss out on a lot if you don't see it in IMAX-3D, too. Only one caveat: Could definitely be too scary for pre-schoolers. Check it out!
Yes, I recommend this movie.
Share:
+1point
1of 1voted this as helpful.
Overall rating
5
/
5
EXTREMELY pleasant surprise!
PostedFebruary 17, 2012
Saw the previews to this and thought, "Oh, great--another movie capitalizing on the BLAIR WITCH/CLOVERFIELD/PARANORMAL ACTIVITY found-footage approach." I wasn't even going to consider seeing it until I read some of the positive reviews posted here, which is a testament to the viewers versus "professional reviewers" syndrome.
I've gotta admit, this little gem knocked me out in many ways. Imagine a movie that's a mix of the films mentioned above, and throw in elements of the classic telekinesis horro sci-fi movies of the 70s--specifically, CARRIE, THE FURY, and the criminally-overlooked (and very much a guilty pleasure of mine) Richard Burton classic, THE MEDUSA TOUCH. Along with these characteristics, the film struck me as one of the most incredible, hard-hitting testaments to the dangers of how "absolute power corrupts absolutely." (Another great example of this kind of story-telling is the 1936 classic film version of H. G. Wells' THE MAN WHO COULD WORK MIRACLES.) The guys who becoming unwitting recipients of this power are put through the paces in grand style as the film unfolds, at first reveling in the incredible FUN they're having with it...then realizing the potential of what they can DO with it...and then dealing with the growing dread & horror as they watch their fellow companion spiral out of control, as the long-term damages of years of abuse corrupt his view of his life and the people in it.
Additionally, on the VERY opposite side of this coin, what makes the movie even more appealing is the side-splitting one-liners in the early part of it...there is some dialogue that will have you howling with laughter.
All of this made, for me, a very enriching, entertaining, refreshing and supremely pleasantly surprising movie-going experience. Films of this nature can be very classy when done with intelligence & creativity, in addition to giving the viewing audience credit for ITS intelligence & not subjecting us to something thrown together just to make some bucks. I thought CLOVERFIELD was a class act in this particular genre, and I would put CHRONICLE right up there with it. Highly, enthusiastically recommended!
Yes, I recommend this movie.
Share:
0points
0of 0voted this as helpful.
Overall rating
4
/
5
Better than I expected, thank God.
PostedFebruary 4, 2012
It was a close friend's birthday last night & this is the movie he wanted to see; I had no problem with that, but had some trepidation. Why? Because of all of the unspeakably BAD horror movies of the last 40 years and the fact that there are way too few good ones. Have to admit, though, this one pleasantly surprised me. Daniel did a pretty good job in his role, as did Ciaran Hinds (Julius Caesar in HBO's "Rome," among other film roles). The story is actually pretty original, although to some it would fall into the more generic category of the classic haunted house film. There are more than a few "gotcha!" moments that will have you dreading what's coming next, which adds to the very pervading sense of creepiness surrounding the story. And without giving anything away, I really liked what they did with the end of the film...again, something we don't see nearly enough of in the majority of horror films.
So why only 4 stars? There were just a few scenes in the film that were way too hard to swallow...specifically, the dogs at dinner time, and Radcliffe's diving into the marsh. Pushed the envelope a little too far, and even in horror movies, there's still credit to be given when the story doesn't stray TOO far from rhyme & reason.
Other than that, I'd say, yeah, definitely a movie worth seeing.
Yes, I recommend this movie.
Share:
0points
1of 2voted this as helpful.
Overall rating
1
/
5
Well-intentioned, but ends up falling short.
PostedJanuary 27, 2012
The previews to this film could lead anyone to believe--considering the subject matter and the near-stellar cast--that it would pack one hell of a punch...and with a little more care taken in the process by the director & writers, this had the potential to be a great movie about the emotional fallout of America's worst day.
And here's the big elephant in the middle of the room: the kid. OK, he lost his dad. OK, he's on a mission to find out what the key unlocks. OK, he feels estranged from his mother. What went horribly wrong here, IMHO, was the utter obnoxiousness of the kid--his mouthiness, his sullenness, his over-inflated ego, and ultimately, his unbelievable selfishness & cruelty directed toward his mother. As another reviewer pointed out, the shtick with the tambourine was just downright aggravating, not to mention preposterous. All of which left me with this glaring question at the end of the film: "Gee, we were supposed to be sympathetic and understanding for this little schmuck?"
I'm not trying to sound heartless here...I know firsthand how it feels to lose a parent when you're at a young age. It ain't no picnic. But again--did the writers & the director REALLY think long & hard about the best way to flesh out this character? His acting was so over-the-top as to be bordering on campy, & try as I did, I just could not feel anything but contempt for him...& sadly, this was only marginally relieved at the film's end (which I was hoping would come sooner than it eventually did). Yet another reviewer stated that this is the kind of movie where you sit there, waiting for The Big Payoff...and it just doesn't materialize. I feel profoundly sorry for Sandra Bullock, Tom Hanks & Max Von Sydow for being mixed up in this mess.
Sorry if this offends anyone. Believe me: I REALLY WANTED this to be a 5-star movie. The possibility that it could have been--and the fact that it DIDN'T--is almost as tragic as the film's subject matter.
No, I do not recommend this movie.
Share:
+1point
1of 1voted this as helpful.
Overall rating
5
/
5
This film will go down in history as a classic.
PostedAugust 27, 2011
I've posted several 5-star reviews for movies I've loved, but I wish I could give this one 6. All the movie cynics of the world are of the belief that Hollywood is virtually incapable of turning out a true classic film in the style of the familiar masterpieces of days gone by...but THIS. THIS is what 5-star (excuse me, SIX-star) movie-making is all about.
I've heard that some members of the African-American community are upset with this film, claiming "it wasn't like that at all." While I respect their views & have no way of refuting that sentiment, I would pose this question to them: Did you know or were you familiar with every middle/upper-middle class white family with African-American maids back in the day? Can such a blanket statement be stated with any real accuracy?
Whatever the case, there is much enjoyment to be had in viewing this spectacular journey through a not-very-pleasant period of our history. Along with the gut-wrenching, tear-inducing moments of high drama, we are treated to an equal amount of stellar humor--and I'm talking about gut-busting, tear-inducing laughs that will have you falling out of your chair & trying to catch your breath. The cast is impeccable, the script flawless, the story absolutely engrossing...which is all to say, I believe it will rake in the Oscars BIG time: Best Picture, Best (first-time!) Director, Best Actress (for me, a toss-up between Viola Davis & Octavia Spencer),.....and if EVER there was a film that deserved MULTIPLE Supporting Actress Awards, this is The One: Bryce Dallas Howard (a b*tch from hell you will never forget), Emma Stone, Allison Janney, Jessica Chastain, and ESPECIALLY Sissy Spacek, in a minor but unforgettable role that will make you want to stand up & cheer.
I say again: THIS is movie-making at its finest. DO NOT miss your chance to see this diamond of a film.
Yes, I recommend this movie.
Share:
0points
0of 0voted this as helpful.
Overall rating
1
/
5
91 Minutes of My Life I'll Never Get Back.
PostedAugust 24, 2011
One of the finer things in life for me, as a movie buff, is the crop of independent films to complement the stream of mainstream flicks...makes life more entertaining & interesting. I've only been exploring them in great detail since 2006 thanks to a friend of mine in Kansas City who got me to go with him frequently to KC's wonderful Screenland Theater...here I was treated to films that I'd known existed, but had just never taken the time to explore. And, as is the case with mainstream cinema, there are both extremes of quality in this particular field.
Unfortunately, THE FUTURE plummeted to nearly the bottom of the heap for me. Don't get me wrong: I LOVE it when directors take us on untrodden paths of storytelling that challenge us, make us think, & as a result engage us in lively conversation as we leave the theater. As my friend & I sat through this excruciatingly painful hour & a half of what's being passed off as art, we kept hoping SOMETHING worthy, sensible, or even half-way exciting would happen. And waiting. And hoping. And what did we get? An "actress/writer/director" so enmeshed in her own over-inflated self-importance that she apparently has convinced herself that what she produced would be met with high praise from the independent film set. In reality, the film was nothing less than masturbatory, with utterly no rhyme or reason, skirting from one train of thought to another, with both Miranda and Hamish acting like they were loaded to the gills on Quaaludes through the majority of the movie. My friend remarked at the merciful end how the film appeared to be some college art project--some of which are brilliant, others screaming the word, "FAIL." The impression it left me with is that Miranda APPEARS to be of the David Lynch/William S. Burroughs school of thought...but my God, even THEIR films had some depth to them & could hold my interest.
When I read the blurb about this little charmer, with its plot revolving around the adoption of a cat (cat lover: check) and the altering of time & space (fantasy/sci-fi lover: check), I was VERY intrigued and had such high hopes that this would be a unique & fascinating film. How sad that it turned out to be the polar opposite.
Take what I'm sharing here as you will; read the inexplicable reviews of praise here and decide for yourself if this is something you want to spend your money & time on. Caveat emptor.
Yes, I recommend this movie.
Share:
0points
0of 0voted this as helpful.
Overall rating
5
/
5
Very worthy remake w/great scares & great laughs.
PostedAugust 19, 2011
I've decided to quit b*tching & moaning about the glut of remakes Hollywood's been dousing us with (ARTHUR, THE THING, etc) & just going with the flow...the main reason being, for me, most of them have been good, if not great. I have to say that I went into this particular remake not at all sure how I'd react, especially since I was such a HUGE fan of the original 80s film, with its great, GREAT mix of laughter & horror (a la AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON) along with its unabashed campiness that just added to its overall appeal...I was even able to forgive the J. Geils Band for coming up with one of the all-time worst closing-credits songs of all time (the worst one being the closing-credits song from BIG TROUBLE IN LITTLE CHINA).
But I'm digressing. I have to admit, I'm burning up with curiosity as to what William Ragsdale, Amanda Bearse, Chris Sarandon & the rest of the cast think of this remake (along with the late Roddy MacDowall at the Great AMC In The Sky). In viewing the closing credits, I noticed Sarandon had a brief appearance as a character named Jay Dee, whom I apparently missed in my first viewing and will have to watch for the 2nd time around...and for sheer fun, this is definitely a movie I will want to see a 2nd time.
So, the $64,000 question as to whether it really IS a worthy remake of the original is: IMHO, YES. There were things about it that slightly disappointed me...Yelchin wasn't really the innocent charmer that William Ragsdale was, Chris Mintz-Plasse's Evil Ed wasn't as over-the-top manic as Stephen Geoffreys' (whatever happened to that kid, anyway?), & it took me awhile to accept the different setting Peter Vincent's character was put in...but really, these are all just minor gripes in the grand scheme. This film could have been a complete piece of trash, the director and producers apparently weren't about to let that happen. Toni Collette, always the consummate actress, did an admirable job playing Charlie's mom, Imogen Poots was sweet & alluring as Amy, David Tennant was both funny & convincing as Peter Vincent (his character reminded me of a marriage between Russell Brand & Chriss Angel), and no doubt about it--Colin Farrell played the part of Jerry to a much more menacing level than Chris Sarandon's more gentlemanly, slightly-more-subdued portrayal. The different directions the story took in this version were both startling and interesting to behold, and I have a feeling that original writer/director Tom Holland gave them all his blessing.
Bottom line: If you loved the original and have an open mind regarding remakes and are willing to make concessions to new artistic freedom choices the producers elected to go with, there is a very good chance you'll be happy with this new excursion into horror and humor.
Yes, I recommend this movie.
Share:
0points
0of 0voted this as helpful.