Reviews

A good thriller where McGregor, a very wise writer, couple with instinctive survival skills and above average investigating mind is BANALLY hit by the car of a probable hit man. He was able to escape his pursuers with genious anticipations and moves, and suddenly become a retard who gets kill by a running car... This easy ending is disapointing and just too ea$y. I would have script a surprising turnover, a genious discovery by the Ghost, probaby a pic or a recording prouving that Emmett was the killer of MacAra, the 1st Ghostwriter , maybe an insider of Adam Lang's staff (Amelia Blank would have been perfect, considering her mysterious 'ghost husband' who could have been an affair with Emmett ? A picture or just a little incident would have prepared the terrain for an unexpected turnover, and at the last scene, McGregor, team up with Richard Rycart (he's already after Emmett), confront Emmet with a proff, and some handcuff... just a suggestion.

I saw the original in a theatre in 1972 with Bronson and Vincent. It was a better film than the 2011 remake. Bronson was at his best (a few years after 'Once upon a time in the west' and Vincent was a rising star (who fade up rapidly). They both radiate charisma and magical presence. The 2011 version is quite good, the action is a lot more powerful and the ending is a bit more logical and conform to the intelligence of a super-assassin. But there's a major weakness: The killing of McKenna/Sutherland is ridiculous, he could have killed Bishop/Statham with his gun, but he prefers to give it to the unarmed (apparently) Statham, knowing pretty well that he was going to be killed by him and his own gun. For that I give it a 5 and a 9 for the original.

Rcasal-48375 got it in the bulls eye, it's a cigarette pub. It's a bad copy of Paris Texas. By the way, for those who ever practiced the 5 Tibetan, the routine of Lucky, I was surprised to learn that one of the exercises, the turning clockwise, was inspire by the whirling dervishes who in fact turn contraclockwise, a way to 'turn back' time related to the magnetism of the earth. The arms are not at 90 degrees, the tight arm is at an angle with the palm facing the sky, and the left palm is facing the earth... this review could seem irrelevant, well it's just in case they want to make a Lucky 2 ?

The preview was very well done, but I decided, for 'serendipity' reasons to wait for the free streaming. Good decision, because you can accelerate the long boring moments, including the sex scene, which is out of place and annoying. There's very good actors (including Raoul Trujillo, the cruel chief of Apocalypto), but most are badly employed and seem to act without much motivation. I hate 'flashbacks', most of the time, they encumber a film with frustration for the viewers, but may be good for popcorn & commercial$? ... And it's full of it. Talking about advertising, now that POT is legally in sales in Canada, it would have been a good idea to see indigenous giving cannabis to smoke to Jacques Cartier, to cover his bad odor. I would have suggested giving the archeologist another week to dig for this, I'm sure he could have done a valuable discovery.

Even if there's good actors, the film is flood with long and boring fights. The final fight last 37 minutes. Even if there's excellent stunts I was bored after 5 minutes. Suspecting an impossible number of kills, I rewind and start counting. A cavalry of around 90 cowboys charged for the last fight (13 stay with the Gautling Gun), I've count 130 kills for only 33 good guys. Another 33 where kill during the 1 st street fight and 2 at the bar. At the beginning, there was a total of 165 sheriffs or affiliated outlaws to control a town of about 31 souls. For the numbers errors, it's possible that many bandits were resussitated in the church or infected by a Zombie virus (a sequence would have help). The budget was estimated at 90 Million$ (IMDB) for a come back of 93 Million$. A profit of 3 Million$. Wow !It would be a lot of money for me, but for the producers ? I'm curious to know.

The 'reconstitution' of the battle of Carthage between gladiators & legionnaires of Scipion is very uplifting. I watch it as some kind of motivation when facing a challenge where my odds are under average. The last time, just for fun, I've decided to count the 'casualties' on both sides. I know some of you are extremely good with numbers and according to the best I can do: I've count 21 gladiators (it's not easy). 6 chariots will get in, each one having 2 men or women on board. During the sequence, you'll not see more than 3 chariots at a time, and 'during the battle', you'll not see the entire arena neither. Only 4 gladiators are kill by the legionnaires at the beginning. Maximus kills 3 legionnaires. Something a bit weird is the use of women in reconstitution fights. From the 60s to 200 AD, female gladiators appear, as "exotic markers of exceptionally lavish spectacle" (Wikipedia). It reminds me a bit about Muammar Gaddafi's use of sexy female's bodyguards: 'Kadafettes'. Listen well, I don't underestimate women in Arenas...It's clear that many women can fight & be bodyguards, but c'mon the use of Pinups (or Drag Queens as security) is an insult. It's a message to the outside world +- like 'You're a bunch of minus, so I only need a few gogo dancers to protect me? Most of these women claim rape after Gaddafi's Nemesis ?

I agree with LemonLadyR from United States. ''Claustrophobic'' photography & characters. To the question ''Why do you climb the Everest'' some answer by 'because I've climb many big pics before (which is not an answer), some may answer with 'because it's there', well, It could be the same answer to 'Why do you play Russian roulette? Because there's a gun loaded on the table... the real answer: Vanity... bragging for the feat. Accomplishment is an uplifting quest. Everest symbolizes it. But it's a counterproductive sport, the training is interesting but the real job brings you only physical and brain damage, as the guide says ''You will be literally dying''. They say they died climbing the Everest, in fact, about 70% died in the ''descent''. Some stats about the death rate of...'descending' the big mountains: ANAPURNA = 41%, K2 = 32% and EVEREST = 25% (they say 1 out of 4 in the film, but the stats in Matador Network are more around 20%). Alternative: Russian roulette, only 8%. Do you realize it's 500% safer than trying Anapurna. OK I know, 1 out of 6 is only 16% but only 50% +- of the 'players' died. The 'survivors' are in fact in a cripple condition worse than death, same for many of the mountaineers who survived the 'adventure' (injuries of 1996 are a lot worse than reported in the film). They've banish Corridas almost completely, if conjuncture don't change, maybe someday it'll be applied to stop the bumper-to-bumper line to the big mountain.

One view of this film will be it. American Sniper is not a film I'll enjoy another time, like Stalingrad (2001) for example, even if it tries to duplicate it in many ways. The acting support is simply not there, Mustafa character is not develop enough to trigger any decent thrill or dialectic. It's quite boring in fact after about 1 hour. The family fights are long, unwelcome, redundant and badly act. Bradley Cooper makes a good Texan red neck. In fact the real Kyle is even more controversial. Watch him on YTube. The story of Kyle, pretending to have knock down Jesse Ventura at a SEALs party is quite pretentious & greedy (for the purpose to increase books sales). Ventura won more than one million $ in court for that fairy tale. Ventura didn't even know Kyle before the book release and have probably never been close to him physically. Another thing about a sniper killing Mustafa at 1900 meters, with only one bullett... it's barely possible ... what did really happen during this event ?

A movie being base on a true story or not is irrelevant. You can manipulate the truth and the facts so much with CGI, editing, acting and cigarettes plugs; The priest is smoking like a demon. Tobacco cies are trying desperately to reach new customers via their ''faith'' & their unconscious, a marketing strategy very debatable, it has no other purposes that to advertise cigarettes in general. I guess that the script is ''base on the priest consumption of 4 packs of cigarettes a day ? Santino in fact looks like former smoking cowboys in tobacco commercials, dying of multiple tobacco cancers, diseases and suspect pimples. Movies in fact, are about another reality, a mental one. At least there's one interesting point, even if I partly disagree, it's a good acting leverage. Sarchie confess to Mendoza having kill a child killer but ask why his rage for the pedophile keep growing after the years ? Mendoza tells him that's because he have done it for revenge instead of justice. Efficient quote that make you meditate, but Justice being a form of revenge... I would say that it's because he did it after losing his temper. Justice/revenge should be done in cold blood, the result for the ''killer'' is still death, but for the avenger: it's a more peacefull state of mind. Sarchie's execution of the pedophile was overdone, so to avoid guilt, his own consciousness represses it by amplifying the evilness of the killer, and in accord with it, the rage of the ''avenger''. Bana seems to give up real acting effort... most of the time. Maybe he was looking for $ to pay the bills. He would have done a better job playing the priest instead of the cop... oups, I remember, he doesn't smoke ?

Average film, with decent efforts, but boring after about 15 min. (don't tell me you didn't look at your watch ?). The weakness is in the scenario. According to the previews, 95% of the humanity was dead. I had in mind that the apes were already dominating the whole earth, the few remaining humans were crawling to get medicine. The war was already won by apes (able to master technology) and a few strong humans (mostly in USA of course) were offering some challenge and fighting back. I would have prefer they start from there, then it would have been fascinating & entertaining to watch, but NO (maybe $ problems, or they keep that for the 3rd film which I will miss), we had to go through the whole process... Predictable in general, and boring. I thought they were going to exploit the ''hundredth monkey effect'', new communications skills... It's a bit like watching a Napoleonic battle, but before, having to endure the stars perform a fake love scene & tender kisses for 45 minutes... c'Mon, if you want an interlude here's a free suggestion: After the deer & bear hunt in the jungle, why not a BBQ at the MUMBA BAR, with the sexy Miley she-monkeys doing the rope dance ? OK Two more 'serious' points. Keir O'Donnell (the bad guy in Mail Cop) his underused in this film, with a small part. I would have give him the part of Carver (the ape-phobic), he's got the acting skills & a mad look perfect for that. Finally, concerning the frustration of Peter Wilder about the fight between a bear and a chimp (pretending that a bear would always win). Just think twice. A female 135 pounds chimp (Suzette, quite cute) checked in with a 1-hand pull of 1,260 pounds on a dynamo meter at the Bronx Zoo. We are talking here about an animal who has almost no idea of what's going on about this test, an animal who was living in a zoo since her birth. Do you know that the strongest men they found could do only about 200 pounds ? And he did it after repeated and focus effort. Can you imagine how much Suzette could lift with 2 arms ? Do you realize the strength ? When Suzette was not in a good mood, she could easily broke reinforced doors with her feet blows. An Orangutan was able to throw a big wood trunk in the air with one arm (about a ton according to the zoo keepers evaluation because 6 men were unable to move it even a small little bit). So a powerful male chimp, hunting in the wild with the intelligence of Einstein, armed with a spear could possibly kill a bear don't you think ? Big bears have problems with another small animal: a wolverine weights between 20-55 pounds (1/2 a dog) and can kill an adult grizzly, just look for ''wolverine vs bear'' ytube, you will see that this little devil can also destroy a pack of wolves...alone

Films are + about mental reality than reality itself. So artistically I have to give it 6 points ... well for believability, only 1 point. For that reason, even if it's a good thriller, I'll zap it the next time.

Hopkins (Engineer Crawford) as always, is a genius in this film. Ryan Gosling (Prosecutor Beachum), looking to win an easy one, will have the fight of his career. The connection Beachum do between to 2 cell phones and the 2 guns is impressive. Details could change life's.

The scenario, wisely, don't focus on huge evidences, drowned in the acting game, but if you stare, the strategy of Hopkins (to get away with murder) depends on unlikely conditions. To succeed, his plan depends on:

1. The presence of Burke (Lt. Bob Nullity) the bedfellow of Crawford's wife, to arrive first on the attempt murder scene.

2. Nullity entering alone in the house of Crawford to negotiate (if other cops had enter the house, as usual, it would not have work, unless you replace Hopkins by David Copperfield)

3. Nullity agreeing to leave his gun on a table (hum...)

4. Nullity blindness to Crawford moves (exchanging the guns on the crime scene)

5. Nullity ignorance of the name of his bedfellow ?

6. Incompetence of Nunally & the investigation team, not controlling the evidence. Even if the guns are the same made, it's improbable that you would not see some differences between your own gun during a few months, starting with the serial number ?

These elephant facts will be obvious only at the conclusion, so you'll enjoy the movie till the end, almost.

Other concerns: a) Why Nunally decide to shoot himself right in the Courtbuilding when Crawford is freed ? Surely not because he's mourning his ''mistress'', he doesn't even know her name. Concerning justice, he has nothing to fear, not even some roughness during the arrest of Crawford. I suspect maybe a dick transplantation, but the film is not explicit about it.

b) Why is it impossible to find other bullets, except the one in the Crawford's wife head ?

c) Why did Crawford shoot three other bullets through the window ?

d) Beachum obtain a court order preventing Crawford from pulling his wife's life support, but become hysterical and arrested with the papers in his hands... by the way, not completely unrealistic but for a soap plant.

I agree for some "historic" modifications to make good movie$. In the the 2014 Aronofsky film Noah, it starts with: "In the beginning, there was nothing'' A bit flat compare to the bible real text which is: "In the beginning God created heaven and the earth...And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters", quite different from "nothing" don't you think ? I already had a bad feeling after 60 sec. The "alterations" that Paramount made, upset Aronofsky: uninspired and inartistic. Not surprise that it has been banned from many countries...for religious and sense disintegration (surmise by "nothing", + the Transformers bug).

Noah "transform" himself from a wise patriarch to some kind of a robot with a Neanderthal IQ (determined to kill the baby if Ila gives birth to a girl, and ready to kill his whole family for that).

I got out of the theatre when the Ark aground... too bored to ask for a refund. I'll ''Watch IMDb'' + closely before going to another Paramount movie.

By the way, I think that there was 3 versions of the film, one of them concern a werewolf who stowaway in the ark and bite Noah and... (just kidding).