Reviews

I was really looking forward to Ant Man. Paul Rudd was a good choice to take the Marvel formula in a more comical direction. As much as I like super heroes, the Marvel stuff is starting to wear on me. I don't like how hell bent they are on tying everything together and making sure to reference other franchises constantly. I knew Ant Man would eventually show up in an Avengers movie, but the casting of Rudd and the trailer signaled to me that this one would be somewhat off the board compared to what they've been doing everywhere else.

I was wrong unfortunately. The tone of this movie is exactly like every other Marvel flick. Somewhat jokey, never taking itself too seriously, but with a normal plot with high stakes involved. It just FELT like every other Marvel movie to date. I realize that's on purpose. They don't want to stray too far from what made the MU such a cash cow, but that's kinda the problem. Instead of letting Ant Man be its own thing, they made it "Not Another Marvel Movie."

Maybe the most unfortunate part is that I've seen better Marvel movies. There was nothing thrilling about Ant Man. The potential to get creative was pretty much entirely squandered aside from what you had already seen in the trailer. I mean come on. You have a guy that can shrink and go back to normal size at will, and all you can come up with is him mind-controlling an army of ants? It was such a letdown.

Rudd is good but they don't take advantage of him. RDJ had more quips in any single Marvel movie he's been in than Rudd does here. Why? This is why you hired the guy! Michael Douglas is fine as is everyone else. Corey Stoll is surprisingly decent as the villain, though they made his character a little too evil (selling to Hydra, who could basically be construed as Nazis? Come on). There's nothing wrong with the acting, it's just the writing and lack of flash that prevent this moving from being anything special.

When we first see Rudd transform to Ant Man, by accident no less, he's in the bath tub of his apartment and I was getting some great nostalgic flashbacks from being a kid and watching Honey, I Shrunk the Kids. I thought this would be a superhero version of that movie, having the same sort of premise. Unfortunately after that scene they don't do much creatively with Ant Man's abilities. He simply works with a bunch of ants to accomplish the end goal, and not much happens before that other than him training and a brief fight with Falcon (obviously shoe-horned in there to tie in with the Avengers). It's just lame, lazy, and as is customary with Marvel movies these days, it reeks of corporate interference.

They also introduce Wasp after the end credits. We need ANOTHER hero??? The last Avengers movie couldn't even give everyone enough screen time, now we're adding two more people? It's out of hand and downright absurd.

My overall impressions were that this movie was a victim of the strict schedule and format these movies (according to the studio) MUST take in order to maximize profitability. It's not about making the best movie possible anymore within the MU, it's about not going outside the box because it's a proved model. I'm sure millions will continue to eat this stuff up, but it's starting to become a broken record for me.

I really enjoyed the first Avengers movie and thought it was a good culmination of the other more character-driven solo movies. Great action and Loki was well-written and played extremely well. Even though I enjoyed almost all of them, I don't think any of the individual movies are spectacular but I thought the first team-up was a very satisfying payoff.

The sequel was really entertaining, though I think it showed some of the pitfalls of having this many characters on screen. It's not so much that we don't get to examine them more closely (we already know them well for the most part), it's that you're trying to give everyone screen time at the expense of perhaps fleshing out the plot a little more. You have large groups of people each expecting to see their favorite hero on the screen for X number of minutes. It's hard to satisfy everyone and cover everything that's going on in the story. While I think there are a couple elements that could've been better in and of themselves, I would say this problem is generally what holds the movie back a little bit.

Ultron's creation, evil plan, and demise are all given minimal screen time. Ultron himself is shown plenty enough, but anything ABOUT him is quickly mentioned and then on with the next scene. I think this is partly due to the fact that they don't want to patronize people too much, given that his whole "peace can only exist by eradicating humans" scheme isn't anything new. At the same time for many viewers it's not old hat, especially the younger ones. Plus even if it's not completely original that doesn't mean we don't want to understand the character more. I suppose they figured villains come and go but the heroes are what everyone wants to see. I don't necessarily agree but from a box office point of view I get it.

The movie also suffers from the dreaded "computer things happen" plot points. When Ultron is created, it's because computer things happen. When Tony locates Ultron's presence on the internet (whatever that means), he does it by performing computer things. When Jarvis is discovered to still be online or operational or whatever, it's because computers. This is a dangerous way to go with a script because as a viewer you feel detached from the weight of any catalysts in the plot. It basically boils down to "things are different now because a computer did......something". We don't know exactly what the nuts and bolts of all this is, just that it happened, and as a result we don't feel as invested or involved as we did before that type of scene. Tony's crazy futuristic infrastructure was relied on too heavily here in my opinion.

Some other mistakes that I think were made include how many jokes were made. This one was way too jokey. At least every other scene someone was making a wise crack, and the running joke with Cap felt forced from the beginning and should've been left out, especially since this movie has too much witty banter as it is. 90+ minutes and about 50 jokes into the movie I really wonder why it was necessary to have a random S.H.I.E.L.D. lackey provide comedic relief, but that's what I'm talking about. You don't need 'relief' in a movie that lacks tension in the first place.

Also for as fast as the film moves along, the plot hitches strangely at Hawkeye's farm. I'm still trying to piece together why that was included at all. It could've been devoted to something much more important. The same goes for the relationship between Banner and Black Widow. It just wasn't necessary. When I see elements like this that aren't done well that nobody wanted anyways, it makes me think that they're things the studio demanded. "The first Avengers was great but we need more of a human element this time around," or some such thing. Both plot lines seemed forced and unnecessary, and I haven't heard anyone say they couldn't do without them.

When the plot is moving though it's quite exhilarating. There's so much super hero prowess on the screen you can't help but enjoy yourself. I think everyone was represented well in terms of the action, and the Hulk vs. Tony in the Hulk Buster was the best scene in my opinion. These movies do need to be careful with the whole destruction element though. After the first movie especially, it's hard not to watch a scene like that at this point and not wonder about all the innocent people walking around in plain sight. Also, make no mistake: thousands died when Ultron uprooted the city and hoisted it into the air. It's fun to see stuff get destroyed while comic book characters beat the crap out of each other, but these movies don't suspend my disbelief enough to not make me think a little realistically about what's happening.

All the actors have been around the block with their characters so it's no surprise they were solid. Ruffalo in particular is great in these movies in my opinion. He plays the timid, tortured soul well and the contrast between his human form and the Hulk are great. James Spader's voice work for Ultron was very, very good as well. Despite some muddy Russian accents I thought Quiksilver and Scarlet Witch were represented well too, by the actors and likewise the script and effects.

This is a fun ride. A tight, well-thought out plot took a back seat this time around, but for the most part everything moves at a brisk pace and the action is as good as ever. It was more of a popcorn movie than I personally would have liked but it's a Marvel movie, where fun should be the most plentiful commodity, and this movie delivers in that respect.

I was hoping for some straight-forward action and some good old fashioned brawling with this one, but the industry continues to amaze me by screwing up movies where all you have to do is......not screw it up.

The beginning of the movie tells the tale of Hercules in quick flashbacks, describing the adventures and trials he's completed in the past. Defeating a hydra, a lion with impenetrable skin, etc. This was really interesting. So interesting in fact that they could've probably made a movie about it! Unfortunately in a bizarre case of decision-making the writers decided to have this movie revolve around how all of that is just a tall tale, and Hercules is actually just a tough guy mercenary. He and his group of kill/maim for hire buddies use the tale to scare and intimidate those they might be paid to "take care of."

In short we're treated to a tale of a muscly guy who beats the crap out of people instead of a mythical figure who fights interesting monsters and completes deadly tasks no mortal man could hope to survive. Also, he wears a felled lion's head on his........head. I thought it was a goof at first but no, that's really the look they were going for.

So Hercules and his group accept a job that will give them all the gold they could ever want. They train common folk to fight before the big battle at this point. Sorry, they don't train them to fight. They train them to all stand in a square with their shields and protect whoever is inside the square. Because that's what we want to see. Not The Rock tearing ass through villages or enemy encampments or something. They took one scene from '300' where the characters take a defensive position and based the majority of the action on it, and a nice little chunk of the plot too.

Well lo and behold what do you know? The "villain" they've been chasing this whole time (who we know nothing about) is actually a good guy! To boot, the king The Rock has been working for is the bad guy! Why? Because the movie says so! The Rock and his group decide to take on the king and his armies against all odds and succeed, culminating with The Rock pushing over a statue half as tall as the Washington Monument. Seriously. Then there is an implication of "was he just mortal or was he really something else?" *barf*

Ian McShane was the one bright spot in this movie. It's a shame this is what he's relegated to. He's a very good actor. John Hurt was John Hurt, which is fine. The Rock himself does a pretty good job and was a good choice for this I thought, it's just everything around him is extremely mediocre. The rest of the cast is very forgettable, though there aren't too many fleshed-out characters in this movie. They beat you over the head with a little back story on each of The Rock's companions but most of it is just to give you a little something to work with as you watch these people.

Overall, a crap effort but all they had to do was show how bad ass Hercules was and all the cool things he did. Instead we get too much talking and a plot no one cares about.

You know how us nerds tend to freak out over movies, TV shows, etc. that we don't think do our favorite properties justice? Well that being said I usually frown on that type of exaggeration but honestly this new TMNT really deserves to be bashed and battered. I kept telling people I was going in with an open mind. I thought it would be forgettable but not insulting. I didn't mind the new look of the Turtles because I figured they were just trying something a little different. The voices rubbed me the wrong way but nothing a good overall movie couldn't remedy. Little did I know....

The first misstep is that this follows the Transformers formula too much, where you're watching a movie about people who interact with the turtles, not a movie about THE TURTLES. The first 30-45 minutes is about April and her eventual discovery of the turtles. Big mistake. Far too much time passes before the turtles show up, and even then it's pretty brief. Then we go back to April, doing a terrible job convincing people that the turtles are real. I think the turtles actually fought a total of about 60 seconds in this movie, and 45 of those seconds are at the end.

At this point it's just a bad movie we can all try to forget, but what shocked me the most was the script. I can say with confidence that a loyal turtles fan that grew up in the last '80s, early '90s could pen a script better than this in an afternoon. For some bizarre reason (or most likely laziness) they decided to make the turtles origin this: They were created in a lab by April O'Neill's father who was a scientist. She treated them as pets when she was a kid and set them free along with Splinter when the lab caught fire. You read that right: April actually knew the turtles when they were babies, and 15 or so years later she is the first one to catch a glimpse of them. This blew my mind. The next thing that blew my mind was that Splinter taught himself and the turtles martial arts from a book he found in the sewer. He knew nothing of martial arts until then. We also see glimpses of them as babies and around age 10 or so I'd guess, while they dance to "Holla Back Girl" by Gwen Stefani. At that point I legitimately though the writers were having a laugh.

There are other things that reek of a rushed creative process. Shredder is given pretty much zero back story. He is a billionaire's lackey and has no connection to Splinter or the Turtles. Will Arnett, who is funny in everything else he's ever been in, is completely wasted here. It wasn't his fault at all, there just weren't any good jokes for him to deliver whatsoever. Whoopi Goldberg as the news editor was out of place. The product placement was too much. You could even tell they sold the ads in packages of two. The Skype logo is shown on a phone, then a character mentions it a few minutes later. There is an entire scene dedicated to how irresistible Pizza Hut pizza is, then later on a couple of Pizza Hut boxes take up the bottom third of the screen for a few seconds.

Some more specific atrocities in the script: April and Will Arnett hide behind a desk while the villain shoots a gun at the desk without, ya know, walking over to them and shooting them. One of the plot points that broke the movie was the "fact" that the turtles are actually bullet proof! I'm not making this up, and no not just their shells. Their entire bodies. This wouldn't be relevant if the Foot Clan actually fought them hand to hand, but they don't. They all have machine guns instead. You see, if you want martial arts in a movie you have to do laborious things like cast people that know martial arts, choreograph fight scenes, etc. We don't have time for that. Nevermind that 'ninja' is one of the operative words in the title of the movie and in the collective name of the characters. When you consider all that you have bullet proof turtles standing still while enemies shoot them in vain. Then instead we're treated to a chase scene where turtles slide down a snowy mountain that I'm guessing is roughly 100 miles to the bottom. I say that because the scene went on for I would guess 10-12 minutes. Snore. While we're on the bullet proof thing I also want to point out that the turtles can also bash through the side of a van they're hiding in in one attempt, somersault through plexiglas while standing still, and if a turtle is hanging off a steel girder riveted to a building they will actually BEND AND EVENTUALLY BREAK THE STEEL GIRDER. This all happens in the movie with no exaggeration I promise you.

Look I realize the movie is directed at kids but come on. It's also for people that grew up loving the turtles that are adults. Plus the kids argument doesn't take you very far anyways. The original movie holds up, why can't this? This movie fails in almost all aspects. They didn't make it enough about the turtles, the turtles hardly fight, and the script was a slap dash effort and everyone involved knew it. In fairness the script does fall into the "give it a break it's for kids" category, but combined with everything else this is just a bad movie. I liked the style of the intro and opening credits. That's literally it. Unfortunately we all took the bait and a sequel is undoubtedly on the way. I'm guessing since the movie came out on Friday that the ink on the new script dried some time on Saturday around 4PM.

This was a pretty good concept and when the film started I thought I could've been in for something special. Unfortunately it seems like a concept was mostly all they had, because this movie simply doesn't hold up the further along you get into it.

The first 1/3 to 1/2 of the movie is pretty entertaining. You've got the looper concept which is new, and even though it doesn't make complete sense the film moves at a brisk pace so although you might have some issues with how time travel works in this universe you can set it aside and just enjoy yourself. After a certain point in the run time though the movie just loses where it wants to go, or they decided to go in a direction that doesn't serve what they've built up to this point all that well.

Soon after Bruce Willis inserts himself into the plot the movie starts unraveling somewhat. We are given each character's motivations, but not shown much to prove them. Characters who are absolutely crucial to the plot show up halfway through. We are told of a character or characters that will have an immense impact on the life of the main character Joe, but most of it is only alluded to and we just have to take the film's word for it.

This could've actually been a sweeping, epic 3 hour journey and it may have paid off to take that risk and film the movie as such. I say that because some plot points are breezed past very quickly and a good bit of emotion that should've shone through doesn't.

One dynamic of the movie I felt was new and unique was when Joe meets his older self (Bruce Willis). Bruce is trying to convince Joe that he has to take certain action to keep his future intact, but Joe isn't interested because that's his old self's life and not really his own. This brings up a lot of interesting questions. If you could communicate with yourself 30 years into the future, would you take their advice so your life would turn out a certain way or ignore them in order for things to turn out naturally? The movie doesn't explore this beyond one scene, and it's not the main focus of the story, but it could've been.

One final criticism: You cannot have a movie about time travel and then whenever characters are forced to deal with the implications of it, have them say "Don't start talking about all that time travel stuff, it'll just make our heads spin." That's unforgivable. It's like having a character shoot someone in the head from 10 miles away and when another character asks how they can do that, they reply "You wouldn't understand." No, no, no. Unacceptable. You need to address those things or you don't have a story. Nevermind the fact that a lot of people are going to see this movie based on those types of conversations. It makes the plot more interesting not less!

Overall hardcore sci-fi fans will hate this movie but most people might enjoy it. Other than Bruce Willis killing children (offscreen but still), it's a 'meh' Hollywood product that will entertain those that don't think too hard about these sorts of things. For me even though I am a big sci-fi fan I was able to forgive the plot holes but only until the movie started dragging and took an odd turn. At that point it just added up to a somewhat nonsensical experience that didn't stick with me at all.

I hadn't heard a bad word about this movie going in, but knew to temper my expectations only because you can have a big let down if you go in with too much enthusiasm.

The movie was a mixed bag for me but a little better than the sum of its parts. The pacing is really odd throughout the entire movie in my opinion. The plot gets sidetracked or takes too long to move on multiple times. Also, there are some strange transitions (scrolling text in order to fast forward months in time? Really?) and shots of characters slowly approaching a location which should've been cut down so we could just get on with it. "Jerky" is how I'd describe the pacing in one word.

My big beef was that while I like Tarantino, he seriously needs to dial it back a bit on some of his signature techniques. They must've went through a thousand blood packets in this movie it was just ridiculous. I like violent movies but all the blood became egregious and without a point, and no this wasn't filmed in a Kill Bill sort of way. Also the general gruesome violence shown was too much. The whipping and the branding, okay I can hack that, but the two slaves wrestling to the death while DiCaprio hoots and hollers was a sick joke. It goes on for 2-4 solid minutes of uncomfortable screen time, with shots that could've been easily cut out and we would've still gotten the point. Yes I understand that this is our history and sometimes you have to force yourself to look, but the movie features the N-word throughout and it's obvious that almost every white character looks at black people as their property to use and abuse as they please. We get it, it's clear as day, you don't have to subject the audience to something so unsettling when you've already made your point. Lastly as others have said Tarantino needs to stop putting himself in these films. You're sucked in to a movie and then he shows up and takes you right out of it. It was cute once or twice, now please stop for the sake of your own work.

The performances were very good and that's what held it all together for me despite my complaints above. DiCaprio stole the show in my opinion, though I think he could've been given even better lines/calls to action. To be honest if the movie was about him I think it would've been just as good if not better. Everyone else was above average to be sure so all in all it was a really good cast.

I think as a whole the movie is kind of a mish mash but the characters are fairly vibrant and the performances vault it into "good" territory. I know I typed more about the bad than the good but again I enjoyed what the actors turned out in this one very much, which more than made up for what I felt was a jagged script.

I didn't really have any expectations going into this one. It was released right at the time when I simply felt there were just too many super hero movies being released. I assumed Marvel's temptation to gild the lily meant a decrease in quality, but I found Captain America to be pretty entertaining with a minimum of silliness.

I can't begin dissecting the movie without first mentioning the way they handled the physical change of the main character. It was done brilliantly in my opinion. My number one complaint with movies these days is the liberal use of CGI, a lot of which I find very distracting. In this case however I think it was about as seamless as you're going to get. When I logged on to IMDb to learn more about the film I was pleased to read about the clever body morphing used and actual movie-making techniques that were combined to create what I feel is a masterful success. Evans has a bit of a deep voice so that was a little distracting to me when he was a small guy early in the film, but other than that I really don't think they could've done a better job.

I was already impressed at that point, but the rest of the movie is pretty good too. It could be accused of taking it's time but the story arc of Cap was rich and thorough which I appreciated. Tommy Lee Jones was a pleasant surprise and was a good choice for his role if you ask me. It was also nice to see Hugo Weaving in a role that's unique to his usual Mr. Smith or Elrond shticks which I was afraid he was getting too comfortable with. On a random note, I thought they did a good job with the costume as well. The mask was a little goofy but it actually fit right in when you think of the 1940s war motif so overall I thought they pulled it off. Lastly I really liked the ending. I knew Cap was frozen originally in the comics so I was wondering where they were going with that and they didn't disappoint.

I was so very glad I took a chance on this one, but I will admit to having some slight criticisms. The "super weapons" that Hydra was carrying around create some issues. It seems like their guns can penetrate pretty much anything, but during the prisoner escape scene our heroes have no problem mowing down bad guys and blowing up enemy vehicles while you don't even see a Hydra soldier even fire at them. Too much of a shooting gallery, and any time Cap got in some trouble the bad guys happened to have flame throwers, not the all powerful guns they usually carried around. I also groaned a little when Howard Stark showed up, but I understand they're trying to tie all the franchises together so whatever no big deal.

To summarize Captain America is a fun ride. The story is pretty tightly wound and I was never really bored. I think trimming 15 minutes or so off of the run time would've have hurt, but at the same time there were no scenes I minded in the least. A nice super hero movie that's pretty solid overall.

I really wasn't hoping for much here. I like a lot of the actors in the movie and at the very least just wanted a little reminder of '80s action movie fun. This movie failed on almost every level.

You've got some gun play and some fights, but a lot of those classic shoot 'em ups were great because the plots, while not very complicated, were straight forward and made you hate the villain(s). The writing here is just terrible and that's even by action movie standards. You've got way too much concentration on Stallone and Statham. I thought this was going to be a great ensemble effort. Instead you've got a lot of decent choices either not doing much of anything or only showing up in spots.

The jokes are just awful. They reek of a writer who's not funny but desperately trying to be. Many of them are really forced. Also there are MANY one liners in this movie that make absolutely no sense. They're not cool or funny, and if you just think about the situation they're used in or the sentence that came before them you think "Huh? Why did he say that? It makes no sense."

I liked Eric Roberts but he didn't have enough screen time for me. The colonel (played by Angel from Dexter) wasn't convincing at all. Not that he really had a chance to be. Right off the bat without much proof we're supposed to believe he's a tyrant. We hear things about why he is but everything's been established about him before the movie even starts and the audience is basically just taking the film's word for it. Show don't tell, duh. Looking back it would've been nice to cut him out completely, focus more on Roberts, and just tighten everything up by going in a different direction.

I think they really missed the point of what they set out to do with this movie. Just make us feel like we're watching a decent action flick from the '80s. Simplify the plot, make the villain evil as all hell, and give us a reason to really root for the hero. This was maybe the only movie in history where they could've just completely ripped off other films of its kind and people would've been perfectly okay with it! Instead it just seems like an incredibly lazy effort that could've been short, sweet, and great piece of nostalgia. It was like after they got the cast together (which was good, not great) they just mailed it in, even more so than a lot of the schlock from the '80s that's way better than this turd.

It's a shame that not even a movie this brilliant can escape obligatory negative IMDb reviews. I do agree (as illustrated below) that there are a few things that aren't explain/don't seem to make sense, but overall it's all there. Some people say the movie is too simple and some say it's beneath their intellectual level so I don't really understand where the majority falls here.

I wouldn't say this idea is completely original but that doesn't mean it's stale either. A plot like this isn't unfamiliar to big fans of science fiction but the great thing is that Inception is still completely fresh and new. At the most basic level the concept isn't something completely foreign but it's still extremely unique and is written very, very well.

I'm sure there are some cinema snobs out there that say everything was explained too bluntly, but if you can write well enough there's nothing wrong with laying it all out there and Inception does that perfectly. There's a lot going on including fitting in the main character's back story but I thought it was pulled off nicely.

I admit I became a little confused when they characters reached the 3rd dream level. Supposedly you're in someone else's dream so they have a safe which locks away their secrets. Okay that makes sense but at the same time if you're in someone else's dream how is an architect building all of it? Also, if you're building it why build a snowy fortress in the middle of the mountains? I suppose since they didn't know that Fischer's mind had been trained to prevent mind theft the whole "the architect builds the dream" thing sort of goes out the window. Then again the female architect mentions how she designed the place. I couldn't quite figure out where Fischer's dream ended and her design began.

The other question I had by the end of the movie was: Why was everyone so worried they would be stuck in limbo? It happened to Cobb and Saito and they didn't seem to have much problem getting out. What was the big worry in the first place? I assume it was difficult for Cobb to find Saito in his own dream world so maybe it was a case of everyone being lost and having to find each other had it happened. On that same subject though, how does Cobb even begin to know how to find Saito? You're in your own dream world and someone else you know is in their's. How in the world would you ever figure out how to get to there? Where do you start logically? Long after the movie ended I almost thought Cobb's quest to find Saito could have been a whole separate movie had they chosen to draw it out into two films. Maybe I just missed something though.......but again even if I did: what was the big deal about being trapped??

I see IMDb has some supposed answers to questions like these so I'll check them out. Everything else is well thought out so I won't be surprised if my suspicions of plot holes are dispelled. At the same time I don't think the movie was perfect in that regard. Overall it ties everything together pretty well for how complex this story is though.

All in all this is probably the best movie I've seen in 5-10 years. How often these days does a movie come along that offers vast originality and stunning execution? Pretty much never. Sure in the last decade there have been a lot of good movies and even a few great ones, but none of them felt as fresh and liberating as Inception. This isn't one of those overdone Oscar nominees that you watch and then wonder what all the fuss was about. It's the real deal. A superior example of story telling and translation to film.

(I apologize in advance for not noting the names of the characters and their respective actors. It's been a few days and there really wasn't anyone in this movie that had a great performance or had done much else I've seen in the past)

I don't expect much from movies like this. Movies are so hit and miss nowadays it's hard to expect a lot from a comedy with a not so original premise and not much fanfare. Not that a movie needs to be hyped to be good (far from it) but I think you know what I mean.

This movie fills the minimum quota of laughs and they're spread out pretty evenly throughout the film. It's somewhat juvenile but that should be expected going in. Regardless if you feel you're above that don't bother. The rest of the movie is fine it's just not very original.

The answer to why this girl is going out of her way for the main character isn't really convincing. She's dated attractive meatheads her whole life and wants to go in the complete opposite direction. Okay that's cliché but I can accept that. The thing is there's pretty much zero chemistry between the two characters and no realistic arc of them getting together. She just picks him because he's not a gorgeous narcissist and that's it. She admits as much later on but it still doesn't explain why she puts up with so many strange things his family puts her through or his particularly unusual lack of self-esteem. I mean near the end of the movie it seems like it's been months since they started dating and for some reason he still can't believe she likes him and still isn't comfortable being around her. That's very hard for the viewer to believe and if he really was THAT devoid of self-esteem there's no way she would have ever even taken a shot at going out with him. I know it's just a comedy but a little believability on the part of the actors would have been nice. You get what you pay for in this case I suppose.

The only other complaint I had was that the ending was not only a cliché that's been done a thousand times but that it was drug out for far too long. At least make it quick if you're going to make us sit through something we've seen a bunch of times before.

The movie made me laugh and I was glad I watched it once. That's a success in my book. I just think with a little more polish it would have been a smoother ride.

One minor note: One reason I wanted to see this is because I'm a native Pittsburgher and a big Penguin fan. I was a little disappointed they just made up player names like Reese and Fox. I mean come on: They got a bunch of Penguins to appear in that Van Damme movie Sudden Death. It would've been nice for them to get just one player, even a nobody, for the sake of a little authenticity. Very minor complaint though obviously. I have actually been to the Brillo Box, the place where the party near the end is held. I don't believe the inside is the same place. The actual place is much, much smaller.

I'm sorry but there was no way I was ever getting into this one. Beforehand the title annoyed me (did anyone really think this would be edgy in the least bit?) and I was not buying Ashton Kutcher as a spy and it was pretty obvious from his past work he wasn't going to "suck me in" as the movie went along. I know everyone is sick of Tom Cruise these days and frankly he plays a spy way too often, but at least someone like him looks the part. Kutcher in this role is just Hollywood trying to usher in a new generation for these movies and it's just better off left to someone a little older with some better acting chops (Clive Owen or someone? I dunno).

The movie commits a pretty big sin in my book right from the get go: The couple meet in France, have a great time, and the movie fast forwards to Kutcher trying to get out of the spy game because he's just so in love with her. *Sigh* I hate when the filmmakers basically just say "you pretty much know what happens here so we'll just skip it." Jeez at least try to hide the fact that the movie is just a way to make a quick buck for the studio.

Anyways 3 years after getting married Heigel finds out Kutcher is a spy and all these people from his daily life start coming out of the woodwork to try and kill him. All of a sudden fat coworkers are skilled knife fighters and goofy neighbors are lugging around automatic weapons to try and get him. Ugh. This transition from normal suburban life to a mine field of would-be assassins takes place so fast and not in a good way. Plus again the whole time Kutcher is trying to harness that "eye of the tiger" his character used to have back when he was a cold blooded killer and nobody buys it for a second.

At the end we find out Selleck was involved with a government agency and had all these people planted into Kutcher's life to make sure he really was on the up and up. When Selleck realize Kutcher was contacted by his old boss, Selleck released the hounds on him. WTF? Whatever, I'm too bored and annoyed to care. The couple has a baby and the movie ends. Good god.

The worst part is the movie tries to create humor by banking on the chemistry Heigel and Kutcher have. It doesn't work because they have none, but it's not totally their fault. The whole "couple arguing while under duress" thing is so overdone by Hollywood. They figure some people still haven't seen it done a million times so they do it anyways. The jokes are lame and we've been there before. I gave it a 2 out of 10 because I did indeed chuckle a few times.

I don't know what people expected here. The first movie was a cult hit, what are the chances the second one meets all the hype and expectation? Almost none. I have my complaints, but I was just hoping it was watchable and in my opinion it was.

The brothers were pretty consistent from the last movie to the next. I could've done without all the spontaneous wrestling matches they get into with each other (we get the picture from the last movie) but otherwise they were fine other than a handful of bad lines. I wasn't a fan of Judd Nelson at all. He just looked cartoonish in this movie, which I realize is less gritty than others of its kind but still I think someone a little more serious would have been better suited. He had some unnecessarily awful lines written for him as well.

Julie Benz's character was kind of annoying as others have pointed out, but I would wager that's exactly what the creators wanted her to do so I'm not going to fault her. The only point I'll make is that I hope Willem Dafoe was only willing to do them a favor and appear in one scene and didn't want to do the whole movie, because if he WAS willing they really dropped the ball there.

The Mexican guy was lame in my opinion. Not funny at all and I didn't understand his fits of sobbing and why they were funny specifically. Why do you have to replace Rocco? Why force it?

My other negatives were how rushed the beginning of the movie is. In about 3 minutes the saints go from mountain men back to killers, it was atrocious pacing and exposition. Also, the identity of the Old Man was just dumb. So he's the friend of the saints' father and was against what they all do yet he's a crime boss? Oooookay I think it's safe to say that's pretty hypocritical and contradictory.

It probably seems like I have too many complaints to give this an above average score, but to be honest the first movie was lightning in a bottle done by an inexperienced, jerky director so it would be a mistake to expect some mind-blowing experience from the sequel. It was a watchable action movie, nothing more or less.