Reviews

Well, the movie was called 'Brotherhood' and there are no others available by that title so I am going to assume I am reviewing the right movie. There have been lots of Steven Seagal movies made over the past decade but few have made it to the cinema or even 'in room movies' at the bigger Hotel chains-I think 'A Dangerous Man' being the exception. I read that Mr. Seagal is an Aikido master-which is well and good but the films by him over the past decade or so are as much about guns as anything martial arts related and most of those films are not that great. This film has a scene where a young gangster is being chewed out by his gangster boss who asks him 'where are your loyalties' and the guy actually replies 'with the Police.' And that works for the gangster boss. Obviously there are significant problems with any film that leaves the stuff that belongs 'on the cutting room floor' in the finished product. In this movie the fight scenes were filmed in almost pitch black conditions so you often can't see the action. Critical fight strikes are off camera sometimes also. This film also looks like it might as well have been shot in black and white because there is so little color in it. Apparently this movie was made by splicing two episodes of a TV show together. Yet its presented as a feature film. Nowhere on the DVD box does it say its two parts of a TV show-it should-because the ending is essentially an anticlimactic event-unlike a feature film where the ending is the biggest part of the film. The action at the end of the movie is at about the same level as the action in the start of the film. Its basically not such a great action flick-if you compare it to action genre classics like 1985's 'Code of Silence' featuring Chuck Norris as a Police Officer in Chicago. I expected more from Steven Seagal in this film. Steven Seagal's earlier film work is way better than this stuff.

A thing that they have done in relationship to this particular movie franchise is they have played the other three films on TV over and over and over-to the point of the ridiculous. This is a good film-a very good film in fact-as are the other ones-but like some good rock songs-over exposure will definitely ruin the products appeal. Many people have been critical of this installment-making fun of it-but its really an above average film. There is a plausible plot line- containing timely concepts which were handled not clumsily but with finesse by the script writers and the cast alike. If I had been working on this movie I would have reason to feel proud of its overall effect. The only thing that isn't particularly good about this movie is the fact there were only three people at the movie, at the screening that I saw. In a well populated area. In a cinema that could seat hundreds of people. A good film in good air conditioning on a miserable hot summers day is not a combination most people would disregard. Cinema is still happening but where is the audience? Support your local cinema.

A show with a visual palette as dark as this one deserves to fail-badly-but this show succeeds- because the script is well done. It draws you into all the plots twists and turns and stands out as the best adult orientated thriller show on TV these days. Many other shows these days use a 'dim light' type of visual approach but they don't have a strong enough script and they don't come off as 'knowing what they are doing' the way that this show does. The characters in this show are virtually devoid of human emotion yet they come across as totally human-which is interesting. I also don't think that any show that has ever been aired has killed more people in its episodes which is kind of a dubious distinction given that violence on television is a problem not a virtue. Modern adult TV dramas tend to be dull affairs these days using way too many stock ideas both visually & script-wise-this show somehow managed to escape "genre typecasting" but I think it still has a few issues-most notably being its violence.

I went to see this movie because it was the 'best of a bad bunch' playing at a cinema just down the street from where I was staying on vacation. I have an open mind when it comes to movies but this one stretched things a bit too far for me. I think that the writing for it was not so great. I don't think there was a believable plot development in that a) its unlikely that the lead female character would suddenly become a raving narcissist overnight, and b) its unlikely a bunch of female models who would get freaked out over a mouse would suddenly turn into Sociopathic Killers overnight. In short I thought the premise was fairly dumb and Keanu Reeves was wasted in this film because he only had a bit part in it. I think one of the reasons I went to see it was because Keanu Reeves was listed on the marque as being in it. It was technically a 'film noir' effort but it didn't really capture much of that genre which is all about intrigue and suspense-and there really isn't much of either in the movie. Since it had a lot of Scandinavian participants it might go over well in cinema circles in Europe but probably not here. The grossness at the end probably didn't help it much. No messages here-even though some people might see it as a 'scathing critique of the modeling world' and or a 'scathing critique of the state of our society in general.' Maybe. Maybe its just a crappy movie.

I saw this film earlier in the summer and it made such an impression on me that I cannot even remember how they finally defeated the alien invaders. I thought the first film was kind of a modern classic in a way-but this sequel was only a bigger, louder more video game like romp which offered scientifically implausible alien vehicles dropping on Earth. The alien vessels were so huge they would have probably altered the rotation of the Earth after they had landed- resulting in a terminal ecological disaster. I think the folk who make SF films these days think that all they have to do is fill the skies with space ships and then 'abracadabra' they have a hit movie. I think I started to fall asleep during this movie several times. It barely works visually on the big screen-so its sure to fail visually on the small one. Yawn.

I liked the character of Jayla-and I thought the other characterizations in this film were fine. In this Star Trek film the special effects took precedent over the story-line-at least that is what it felt like to me. The special effects are truly astounding-but the story is not at the same level-being basically a run of the mill- super-bad-guy versus the Federation. Nothing new there. Funny beginning and an ultimately unsatisfying ending which was a surprise given the caliber of the people working on this project. Part of the ending was a genuine 'spit in the face' of the audience-something I think the people working in the film industry cannot really afford to do, because when I saw this film-it was playing to an audience of three-and it was not a special VIP screening-its just that people were not going to see it. Playing to empty cinemas is a sad legacy for the Star Trek franchise-and its a legacy that is starting to be a reality. I think that people want more than ordinary scripts that contain hilarious errors. The error at the end that more or less gonged the entire film was when the new character of Spock looks at photo of Leonard Nimoy as Ambassador Spock while he was serving on board the Enterprise. So he was looking back at a photo of his own life-since he is supposed to be Spock serving on the Enterprise-but Ambassador Spock had died-but that could not be true since he was alive looking at the photo of what would be his own past-which would also be a falsehood since he wasn't Leonard Nimoy. It is ridiculous to expect audiences to deal with such utterly convoluted rubbish. I gave this film a six out of respect for the special effects people who worked on the film-not for the script or the directing, etc.

Technical issues should not be a significant factor in watching a movie. They were when I watched a new copy of this film on DVD-it jammed there times in an otherwise functioning DVD player. The film is good-on the big screen-but its sometimes very dense visual field will not translate well onto the smaller screen unless of course someone has a very large TV at home. This also probably represents the best of what Marvel comics had to offer. When I was younger I was familiar with all the different comics and most of them were not very appealing-which would be most of the Marvel comics-since they were often drawn in an overly stylish way that was like using a visual language of 'artistic clichés' which was not very creative. For a decade at least there has been a massive amount of attention expended in turning Marvel comics into movies-and very little has been seen from the other comic book creator-DC comics-which was generally thought of as having the better artwork, compared to Marvel comics. This is a fun film but its success will probably only spur more adaptations of the other essentially repetitive and dull comics that Marvel churned out month after month for years on end. It is as if someone thinks that comic adaptations are always good for adult viewing also as if nurturing a never-ending childhood should be the goal of the entertainment industry. Since most of this subject matter is movies with a significant amount of violence in them that should concern adults. It should not be that kids are growing up with all violent movies and adults should not also be expected to always enjoy watching that kind of thing also-as if they were children as well, when they are not.

Patrick Wilson & Vera Framiga were fine in terms of their acting in this movie. The home of the family who were the subject of this movie was depicted as a pigsty, complete with dirty telephones and disintegrating walls & badly worn furniture. Such a depiction greatly reduced the scripts effectiveness as tale about 'ordinary people in trouble.' People generally didn't live in unclean homes like this in the late 1970's unless they were in the drug trade. This historical issue ruins this movie and it becomes a sort of parody-a parody of a horror movie and a parody of the late 1970's, which is probably not what it was intended to be. All in all it was a bleak movie but it was bleak due to its depiction of an era that had a lot of things going on in it. Little of which was present in the movie. I don't recommend seeing it.

This show has become THE staple of late night TV viewing. As such it really can't be "reviewed" in any conventional sense. It is a TV institution. When it goes it will leave a distinct hole to fill. One thing I do know for certain is that there are an amazing number of TV commercials on TV shows like this these days that often cause me to lose interest in whatever I was watching-this show included. NCIS usually runs at least twice a day and both times suffers from being saturated with TV commercials-like most other TV dramas. I think the idea of TV commercials generally is to hit people while they are in a 'receptive mode' watching something they like-which will in theory make them buy the thing being advertised. Liking a show like this means your IQ is over the level of being so easily influenced. Go figure. I preferred Michael Weatherly in the show Dark Angel-and I don't think that any 40 year old women who wears 'hello kitty' paraphernalia to work would be bright enough to work as a lab tech, never mind as one of the brightest-if not THE brightest-lab technician in the world. The point can be made-and I'm sure many people have said that-to no avail. I think its a seven out of ten and no more because the show gets repeatedly mired in annoying/vaudevillian moments-usually when there is a cadaver present. The only character with a consistently clear head is Jethro Gibbs. I think most people wouldn't want a job that doesn't allow for a personal life. This show suggests such an approach to work is preferable as if work was on a par with being in some kind of a religious order where relationships were 'planet forbidden.' I also think that Ziva's character-although tough & likable-doesn't accurately reflect the real life policy on who can & can't work for an organization like NCIS. I guess being more realistic won't give a show superior ratings. 300 episodes can't be wrong.

It seems a fair amount of viewers didn't like this movie all that much. No superheros in it-well there was really if you consider the way Kevin Kostner's character moved through bad guys like a knife through warm butter. The fact it had more than its share of kick ass action should have garnered it more action movie fan attention. KK isn't around much these days and I think he knows he has to truly excel if he wants the public's attention-its that kind of a public-but he does excel in this movie. It is funny & it also sheds plenty of led. It deserved a better overall score than the 6 something IMDb reviewers gave it. Its an eight. Maybe more...its worth checking out if you have never seen it.

I read the movie industry blurb about this movie not really being a sequel to Cloverfield so I went to it not knowing what to expect. Personally I thought that they should have tried to make it more of a sequel to Cloverfield or done something not related to any other films. I found the whole thing a bit gratuitous. John Goodman is always in watchable movies and I think him being caste in this helped it work as a drama-since it can only vaguely be called a science fiction film. What they did is use a background of science fiction to play out an interpersonal drama-which is OK I guess but I think if that is what they were going to do they could have come up with their own science fiction scenario rather than borrowing someone else's idea. I thought there should have been more to it.

I think this film is a significant effort in recent filmmaking. Its is at turns funny-serious and everything in between. I enjoyed watching it. I thought it gave an eye opening view of the way Kabul was in the recent past due to all the war related activity in that part of the world. I recommend this film to both Cinephiles and the casual movie goer. I thought the acting was also pretty good which is something you don't see very often these days in the movies. Tina Fey is someone recognizable from her work on Saturday Night Live-at least that where I know her from-but she is effective as a movie actress as well. This is a good movie to go and see with another person rather than by yourself as it most certainly will spark a discussion about it afterward. Good cinematography and it looks like it was filmed actually in Afghanistan. I should have checked the credits to see for sure...oh well-this would be a good film to see at home also...two thumbs up!

From time to time I like to watch these types of films. They can vary from not bad to really quite abominable. This one had a really good cast and evidently plenty of money to work with. The film works well up until they introduce an enormous man-monster who likes to yell "Arrrgh" and smash things. I find it amazing that they could not come up with a more imaginative 'antagonist' type character. I think that the filmmakers relying on such a clichéd character is truly embarrassing. The fact that the movies story line before 'the big ending' was a bit more complex than usual was demolished solidly by the way the film ended. In general I think they have spent way too much time developing the whole realm of superhero comics into film & TV. Those types of works do work-but only from time to time. I think that the saturation of the superhero genre that we are reaching is negatively impacting on the sum of everything in the genre.

What this film basically says is that is OK if you get a slew of folk killed as long as you are 'fighting the good fight.' That is a fairly abysmal moral premise. This film also showcases Mickey Roarke at the height of his popularity and is often regarded as an 'unsung contemporary classic film' by "those in the know." I don't think it really qualifies for classic film status-when the only thing really outstanding or even good about it is the cinematography. The film also goes on about 'Chinese stereotypes' when thats basically all the film depicts. I would also find it hard to believe that only one cop in NYC had a problem with the criminal activity in NYC's Chinatown. In that way the film is relying on the fact that it is 'a work in motion' to hide its multiple flaws. I also didn't find Mr. Roarke's character particularly likable-I'm not saying I found the actor unlikable-I found the character the actor was playing basically an unlikable person. I used to think this was one of the best movies made in the 1980's. My opinion of it has changed over the years. I think that 'To Live & Die in LA' was probably the better crime movie from the 1980's time period. If someone is a hardcore fan of the crime genre film will probably still like this movie. I can only give it a bare pass.

I thought the action sequences were strong and effective. What I thought was not effective was the way they used little bylines to 'introduce' characters in the early stages of the film as they were going to give a quiz afterward. I think the viewer decides who is important in a movie and who isn't. Other than that quality lending the film a sort of childlike atmosphere rather than a serious dramatic atmosphere-it was generally very well done. The action sequences were plentiful. I think that they wanted to cash in on the popularity of the first film, no doubt-but I think that generally viewers just want to have some fun watching stuff they would never see in real life-so on that level this film works well. A thing that I found actually annoying was the way they released two films a little while ago with the same premise-an attack on TWH. I thought that was a little bit of dumb. I watched both and I still wonder why they did two films that were so similar in terms of plot.

I remember reading the 'official entertainment review' of this movie after it had come out. It was panned by the critics. I went to see it just to see what they were complaining about and I found a film that was original in every sense. The characterizations were a bit strong but maybe thats the way people were back then. Nobody can say for sure since nobody is alive from that time period. I thought that somewhere in the film they could have found some way to explain why they used two 'v's' to make the word 'witch.' The reason being that the word 'witch' came from Scandinavia in the form of the word "vvitch" meaning "sorcerer" (usually a male person as posed to a female person) which has a more powerful evil connotation that the commonly used western term 'witch.' The origins of the term are darker and imply greater evil than a 'witch.' Anyway-the film was gritty in an interesting and different way and I think the film attempted to convey the darker connotation of the concept of a 'sorcerer.' Not a film to watch alone at night. Effective horror- something that you don't see very often.

RE an IMDb comment 'Noah was shot multiple times being accurate'-well no its not-he was shot once by Wesley Snipes character-BANG-one shot-and Wesley Snipes character. WS character had also used bits from a Police guys glasses to free himself from handcuffs. The Police person later discovered a lens missing from his glasses when he tried to use them to read-but the part Wesley Snipes character used from the glasses was one of the side frames that holds the glasses to the head-not a lens-which is the part missing. Thats maybe nitpicking to some people but I think its really an out and out mistake. This 1998 film is highly derivative of the 1993 film The Fugitive where the same US Marshal team initially appears. I thought the remake of the 1947 film (it was also a mid 1960's TV series) The Fugitive in 1993 with Harrison Ford was a watchable movie but this one is a bit too similar to that 1993 film to really be called original-I think. Nonetheless fans of action films will appreciate the action in this one. Not a classic but more or less OK. Robert Downey Jr plays a bad guy well-but did he really have the time to change his weapon to a Glock from 'a nickel plated sissy pistol?' Probably not.

I think SF films like this are popular because they have the effect of making the audience feel that 'life is normal and the world is fine' when the film is over. The only problem with that subtext is that in reality life is getting downright screwed up for plenty of people these days even if there is no alien invasion coming at any time soon. The premise for making movies like this is that this type of SF is "good honest escapism" but I think that disastrous scenarios for Earth are not just the stuff of SF. There is no significant number of electric cars on the road today (even after the idea that relying on oil for energy is bad for Earth's atmosphere has long been established) and we-as a society-are still virtually completely dependent on big oil as our main source of fuel for our vehicles and the thing that balances our economy also. And woe betide anyone who says using so much oil is dumb especially since we can use electricity to power vehicles cleaner & cheaper. Films like this are "reassuring" to people because it's all 'just a story.' Maybe big oil is run by aliens. The acting in the film was predictably fair to good and the special effects were predictably minimal. There were exactly three other people in a cinema that could easily accommodate about 300 people when I saw this film on a weekend matinée showing in the early afternoon. Apparently people also don't go to the movies on the weekend anymore either.

I thought this film was like 'closure' to all the alien conspiracy theories that had been discussed in various X-Files episodes over the years. The acting was good and the film was professionally done. In retrospect it was -I think-much better than the follow up film in 2008 which I thought was basically a waste of time since it was not a continuation of the alien conspiracy uncovered in the first X-Files movie: it was like an extended episode of the X-Files TV show circa 1995. I also found it a bit too gory for my tastes. I had always liked the twists and turns of the plot in the TV show and I thought they did an effective job in this movie-I think they really had an impossible task but they pulled it off. I recently saw the first two episodes of the new X-Files TV miniseries. I had some feelings about it. I felt that it didn't seem to reflect that a massive alien conspiracy had been uncovered/proved & dealt with within the confines of the first X-Files movie. The first episode opens with a voice over by Agent Mulder basically saying 'I have never found a shred of proof of the existence of aliens.' In light of the first X-Files movie that would be absolute nonsense. Not only did Agent Mulder find proof of aliens on Earth in the first X-Files movie he came into close physical proximity with actual aliens. That is more than 'evidence' which he claims in the voice over of the first episode of the miniseries he has yet to come by. I can accept a lot from a science fiction/mystery orientated TV show like the X-Files-but a denial of major plot premises of past efforts albeit in a movie isn't one of the things that work for me. See this film-its probably the last good thing they did related to the X-Files TV show.

This movie opened on Christmas Day and was the perfect holiday movie. Leonard DiCaprio deserves an Oscar for his performance in this movie-it might be his best film ever I think. Tom Hardy played the arch enemy of LD's character-which TH also did very well. I have not seen a bad guy like that on screen for some time-maybe never. The historical aspect of the movie was handled well-you really got a sense they were back in the 1820's. The film was apparently based on a book but I have never come across the book they are talking about. I really cannot say anything negative about this movie because I think that so far it is the most accurate film dealing with the subject of pioneer America. Go see it-you won't be disappointed. I think it will do well in terms of long term sales if it isn't knocking them dead at the box office right now-it will probably sell a lot of DVD's over time and become a 'new classic movie.' It deserves to be one.

Well, actually it isn't a typically crap contemporary horror movie-its far worse than anything I have ever seen which maybe defines a typical trajectory for the type director Eli Roth is. Really. The movie is an abomination-its actually a sick movie. I think that it exists is testimony to the mercenary attitude embodied by todays "new school" of horror filmmakers whose only criteria is gross 'em out worse in each new film. I think some revere guys like Mr. Roth-seeing them as 'beacons' in "an otherwise blah cinematic terrain." Uh-huh. The "cinematic terrain" is only blah because guys like this director keep mercilessly releasing one Jabberwocky after another. I think a good horror movie should have some subtlety. This film has no subtlety. I think a good horror film should have some atmosphere. This film has none. I think a good horror film should allude to things of an unknown and supernatural nature. None of that in this one-just ripping flesh galore. Maybe this type of fare goes over big with people who don't know how to read. And who probably never will.

I had no idea what this film was about-I just thought it might be good because of Jennifer Lawrence. Boy was I wrong. I suppose if compared to being in a hurricane or a flash flood-this movie would definitely come out on top-but as a 'movie for entertainment purposes' it belittles the audience and the people on the screen rendering them mere caricatures of people-not real people at all. That is strange to see-actors with talent wasted on what is basically nothing but a dumb movie project that isn't even worth being a movie of the week on some family orientated cable station. There were other things that didn't work in relationship to this movie-an endless 45 minute "preshow" from the movie chain that treated the adult audience as if they were all in grade seven. Going to the movies has become virtually a waste of time-especially if this is the type of thing they expect people to go for. I heard the positive reviews by critics but I don't see any positive reviews from an cinema goers. Everybody seemed to think this movie was ridiculous. I know I do. Its a movie about a woman who designs a mop. That's right-a mop. Unbelievable.

Its funny whenever I see movies like this I like them and dislike them-I like them because they make you appreciate what you have by seeing a world where people have really not much at all- and at the same time I dislike them because its like the film that was designed to make people in the real world feel happy with less. Neat trick. Anyway, as far as near future movies go this one is basically a good film-the acting is not bad-three cheers for that-and the plot line is also effective. Apparently the robotic donkey is a real device made in Boston. The beginning of the film reminded me vaguely of the first Star Wars movie-the farm in the desert bit I suppose. I cannot remember it ever being in cinemas but I might have just missed it completely when it came out. I bought it after watching it online for free. Worth a look for "hardcore" SF fans-others probably won't find it all that interesting. Not for kids with scenes of violence and some gore.

I think that Katy Perry is about "girl empowerment"-that is to say I think she wants girls to be proud of themselves-and teenage girls as well-so instead of doing what everybody else does- she is an original who is not like the other female singers out there whose are mostly about 'being a Femme Fatale.' Britney Spears even named one of her albums 'Femme Fatale.' Most young women would rather be themselves and have fun than pretend to be some kid of "ultimate female" or 'Femme Fatale.' (some people define a Femme Fatale as a woman who by virtue of her good looks lures men into dangerous situations-but I think it means a woman who is all about being the focus of every mans attention) I think KP appeals to the group of young women who don't take themselves too seriously which I think is a good thing. I am a fan of many different types of music and I like to hear about how someone decided to do what they do in music. This film had plenty of material that gives a look into the life of the performer and why she does what she does. I think attempting a tour that lasted forever probably contributed to her marital problems- which were sad to see in the film. Her positive attitude is contagious and her voice is often surprisingly good in terms of what she is capable of doing sonically when she really gets going. There isn't much talent out there in the music biz today so I think its good to see someone who has got singing talent and I like her crazy costumes-not 'totally nuts' like Lady Gaga-just colorful and playful-which makes her shows fun & sexy.

I liked the first film of this series but I didn't like the first sequel as much because I thought it was too similar to the first movie, like it was an afterthought rather than a work in and of itself. This one was better. It was a bit long but other than that I thought it was mostly OK. Plenty of new things etc but maybe they were running out of ideas a bit to use zombies at one point that looked like they belonged in a Resident Evil film...Like most good SF films-they always try to wring the most profit they can out of them in terms of sequels often at the cost of quality. Many writers who do Horror and SF are at the root of this problem often trying to extend ideas into multiple volumes that have already been completely stated in one book. Ah creativity...be it ever so long winded. Its really not such a bad SF idea but there have been several similar works done recently-The Giver and the Divergent film series come to mind- teen/young adult films based in dire futures where society lives in 'tribes' in an attempt to 'avoid the errors of the past.' Its not a bad film but maybe we've seen enough in the way of films about Dystopian type futures for a while.