Reviews

I am actually currently very 'unfamiliar' with.......and have never 'officially' rated ANY Daniel Craig-era James Bond movies -until NOW. Up until the "Daniel Craig" era -- all James Bond movies -- even the 'worst' in the series -- have had a sense of 'magic' and 'charisma' as well as great action scenes and utilized 'techno-gadgetry' on a level that only few other movie franchises have. In my opinion, even the 'worst' James Bond movie that I can recall -up till the "Daniel Craig" era- "A View To a Kill" still effectively presented a certain level of 'magic' and 'intellectuality' and charisma and 'interest' that was befitting of this movie franchise. I recently 'officially rated' "A View To Kill" -- and rated this flic 2 stars......and considered it to be, by a slim margin, the worst Bond movie that I could recall watching. That being said, "A View to a Kill" is by no means a bad movie.....but it is 'mediocre.' Daniel Craig, if nothing else, is perhaps an actor -- a 'product' of his era: Even though technically he is the first ever 'blonde-haired' James Bond actor....he does have a presence and a decent amount of 'charisma' and 'attitude' and 'demeanor' that is befitting of '007.' He is also -since he is a product of his era- easily the most stoic, serious, un-humorous and to a great degree 'mean-spirited' and vicious and sadistic James Bond actor -which, for me, makes him easily the least 'likeable' James Bond actor ever. He is in every way the 'antithesis' of esp. say, "Roger Moore." 007 actors such as Timothy Dalton, Sean Connery, and Pierce Brosnan on the other hand found the perfect balance between being intelligent, dangerous, and serious....but also being 'likeable' and having much charsima and screen presence as well. Another attribute of Craig is that he seems to probably be the most 'physically-adept' Bond actor ever -in terms of fighting ability and stunts...

The movie, "Spectre," starts out in Mexico City where "The Day of the Dead" is being celebrated. The imagery and cinematography for this event is saturated with soft and dusty yellow/orange hues and tones give the impression that Spectre is transpiring in a day and age of a post-apocalyptic neo steam-punk world. The opening helicopter scene is probably the most amazing helicopter action sequence since the beginning of the 1981 Bond flic "For Your Eyes Only." After this scene.....the plot of "Spectre" unfortunately lags into oblivion and remains quite 'uninteresting' -- only barely watcheable for quite sometime. The first half of the movie, "Spectre," especially......feels completely 'purposeless,' 'washed up,' 'pointless,' and 'dead.' All of the magic and interest that permeated Bond movies prior to the "Daniel Craig" era are completely 100% absent in much or most of "Spectre." The cinematography -esp. during the first half- of "Spectre" is dark, unimaginative, and uninteresting and is the antithesis of 'eye-candy': It is 'eye-salt.'

There is a 'semi-okay' car chase scene in which Bond is driving an Aston Martin or Jaguar.....but this is a very overrated chase scene and fails in comparison to pretty much all other car chase scenes in all previous Bond movies. This chase scene isn't nearly as memorable as car chase scenes in Vin Diesel movies "The Fast and the Furious" nor does it even compare to chase scenes in any of the movies of the "Jason Bourne" franchise. Even the opening car chase scene of the 1981 Bond movie "For Your Eyes Only" (when Bond and his female companion bound over trees and hills in a four-wheel drive utility jeep-type vehicle) is much, much more interesting and 'creative.' The plot and pacing of "Spectre" as well as the dismally-dark and depressing cinematography fortunately does become more 'intelligible' and interesting as the movie progresses, thank goodness. The scene where Bond chases villains -while Bond is in a plane and the villains are in vehicles- is definitely a fairly vintage "Bond-esque" scene....one of the EXTREMELY FEW in the entire movie. Ben Whishaw is unbelievably-terribly-miscast as a new "Q" replacement. He isn't only '2 steps down' from the likeability and charisma and intelligence of the former "Q" (Desmond Llewelyn) - he is '20 steps down': He comes across as very confused and uncertain and unintelligent. Finally, the "Spectre building complex" which comes into the plot towards the end of the movie doesn't embue anything resembling the sense of 'awe' or 'wonder' that villainous buildings/complexes embued in previous Bond movies -such as the orbiting space station in "Moonraker." In my opinion, "Spectre" is clearly the worst Bond movie that I have so far ever seen or 'rated.' It seems to have higher 'production values' than 'A View to a Kill.' But most everything about 'Spectre' seems 'forced,' lifeless, pointless, lacking in magic or interest and just completely 'washed up.' The opening theme music "Writing's on the Wall" was merely just barely 'okay' -- and certainly far inferior to the Duran Duran theme song 'A View to a Kill' and most other theme songs from previous Bond flics. All things considered, I rate "Spectre" 3 stars.

I'm a staunch believer of the Bible, other scriptures, and also Biblical 'timelines.' I believe that nearly everything that transpired in the Bible -- transpired in the manner that the Bible purported it to -- and in the time-frames that it purported it to. I don't believe that the Bible is simply a book of 'fables' or 'morality tales' -which false and idiotic notions are becoming more and more popular among all people these days. In today's day and age, many or most people would consider me 'gullible,' 'foolish,' or 'illogical' as a staunch believer in scriptures. However, I believe that it's 'the other way around': Society and people have never been more blasphemous or stupid than they are in today's day and age -- and it absolutely is NOT 'concidental' that the waning intelligence in society has 'coincided' with 'secularism' and people becoming 'atheist' and returning to pagan roots and losing their faith and knowledge in things that are 'spiritual' and in God: This is one of many proofs that 'the glory of God truly IS intelligence'.....and that conversely, society and people do become stupid in EVERY CONCEIVABLE WAY when they become 'God-less.'

Nearly everything; nearly every aspect of society for the past at least 50-60 years, has become exponentially stupider and stupider with every succeeding decade.....and there's no reason to believe this trend will not continue..... Movies have never been more talentless and stupider; neither have today's 'sports heroes'/'athletes' today's music........today's politicians, most everything... Critics have longed lost the ability to 'critique': A very high percentage of movies that are truly dreadful and awful 1 or 0-star movies -- which not surprisingly have appeared mostly only starting in the 2000s to the present date, are considered to be 'great' 4-star movies by many or most critics. One of many examples of this is that I have very unbiasedly given "0 star" ratings to two of the newest Star Trek movies (Chris Pine and company). Yes, I believe that they are THAT stupid and talentless....and THAT bad.

I believe that the Biblical Noah was a very righteous and holy man....and that he was commanded to build an ark by the Lord. I believe that the Lord did guide "2 of every species" of all animal life into the ark; and that this thing DID actually happen and WAS possible. I believe that for all intents and purposes, that the sheer number of animal species 5,000 years ago may not need have been in the many thousands or millions...but perhaps only several thousands, or even hundreds. I believe that it IS 'logical' to believe that the 'process' of 'speciation' of all 'carbon-based life forms' has occured MUCH MORE RAPIDLY than what most scientists would ever deduce: Once the hundreds or several thousand species of animals departed Noah's ark AFTER the flood...it would have taken only a short amount of time, only several thousand years (to the present date) for thousands or millions of 'new species' of animals to have formed -by means of adaptation and mutations- from originally only hundreds or a few thousand species. Hence, the "Biblical" size of Noah's ark (500 feet long?) could have easily accomodated all the species of animals present at THAT TIME on earth.

I also believe that Noah's flood DID cover the ENTIRE earth.....and that the highest mountains on earth at THAT time may have only been several thousands of feet high. It wasn't until AFTER the flood, in my opinion, that "Pangae" separated into the continents that exist today.....and that mountains became ALL OF A SUDDEN IN A VERY SHORT AMOUNT OF TIME exceedingly high -due to an EXTRAODINARILY-RAPID movement of all plate tectonics throughout the planet, which were caused by the flood to accelerate.....before they 'slowed down' to the very slow rate that they move today...

Noah's flood, also, was likely abetted by aquifers in the earth; in other words perhaps rain, alone, for 40 days could not have covered the earth...

One of the first movies that I saw Russell Crowe star in was in "Master and Commander: Far Side of the Earth." Because of my impressions of him in that movie -- as well as in 'Gladiator' -- I felt that at that time that he was a legitimate actor, if even a very good actor. However, since about that time (early 2000s), about every movie that I have seen him ever since, his acting skills have diminished exceedingly..and I can't recall a movie that I have seen him in since the early 2000s, in which his performance was NOT atrocious. He almost always speeks with a moronic 'gruff,' hoarse voice that is very difficult for me to understand -- hence, I'm sure is impossible for someone that is in the process of 'learning English' to understand -- he conveys very little emotion and his overall acting abilities are pathetic. He does truly belong in today's modern age of actors ; a very very stupid modern age that produces such 'actors' as Mark Wahlberg, Jason Statham, Vin Diesel, Brad Pitt, Chris Pine and a slew of other 'incredibly-bad' actors that don't have 1/3 the acting abilities of past greats such as Cary Grant, James Stewart, Spencer Tracy, or even Harrison Ford or Tom Cruise.

Though Crowe purports to be "Christian," his selection of playing roles in a movie such as THIS (Noah) and many other recent movies seems to suggest that he is a very 'laxed,' 'lapsed,' or 'dumbass' Christian.

The movie, 'Noah,' starts out with Noah and his family in a barren wasteland. The descendants of Cain have filled the earth and their seeming only purpose is to hunt and kill people. 'In this movie there are ridiculously-unrealistic 'rock monsters' which were formed by the 'creator.' As far as I could recall, the word 'God' is never mentioned in the movie, "Noah"; apparently it is much 'safer' to create a 'religious' movie these days be making it as 'irreligious' and politically-correct as possible; maybe a movie such as "Noah" would have created a lot of controversy or not have been nearly as popular with audiences had the word 'God' been used in the dialog of the movie, rather than 'creator.'

The vestiture and attire of Noah, his sons, and the descendants of Cain does not in any way reminisce of what people 5,000 years ago would have dressed like. Most of the clothing is an ugly un-imaginitive black and reminisces of 'barbarism' or 'heathenism' from perhaps a few hundred years ago. The short hair of Noah and his sons reminisces of the 'worldliness' of today's haircut styles. In the movie, 'Noah,' the story of Noah, his family, and the flood are completely and moronically re-interpreted in a very, very stupid, 'paganistic' and blasphemous way throughout the entire movie. Anthony Hopkins portrays "Methuselah" -who I am sure in 'reality' was a very holy and wise man. However, in the movie, "Noah," Methuselah is a washed up 'fool' who seems to have no wisdom or knowledge of 'spirituality' or of 'God'....and who is only concerned in his old age with sipping tea and finding berries to eat. In fact, right before the flood washes away Methuselah, he is comedically actually in the process of putting one berry into his mouth immediately before his demise.

Giant 'rock monsters' engage the descendants of Cain in a horrific battle as the rain begins to fall heavily which immediately precipitates the deluge. The battle scene is extraordinarily-stupid, unrealistic, and in every way conceivable doesn't even approach to being a 'poor-man's "Lord of the Rings: Two Towers" final battle between the orc hoards and the elves...

In 'reality' all wicked people perished except for Noah and his wife and his sons and their wives. However, in the movie, 'Noah,' Noah forbids any of his sons from marrying......and not only that but 'Tubal-Cain' portrayed by Ray Winstone ends up 'sneaking' on board.....and killing and eating some of the animals in the ark. Incredibly-incredibly-incredibly blasphemous, grotesque, evil, demented and stupid. Scenarios such as this; a film such as this; could never have entered the mind of anyone alive back in the 1950s or so when the movie titled "The Bible" came out -which interpretation of Noah's flood is far superior and far more realistic and accurate than THIS mess of a movie was...

The last -- if not ONLY time -- that I can remember watching a movie that was as strangely-fascinating as "Noah" -- in part because it IS so stupid and blasphemous -- was when I recently watched, for the first time ever, "The Last Temptation of Christ" (1988?) starring Willem Dafoe. THAT movie is so 'strange'.....bizarre.......and unintentionally 'dumb'......that I have actually watched it several times SINCE then; it is entertaining and something of a deluded unintentional comedy. "Noah" does have some things going for it: It is very strange, original, and unique in certain ways and at times the FX are pretty good...but in just as many ways the 'feeling' throughout the movie isn't one of 'wonder' or imagination....but instead there is a permeating spirit and atmosphere of 'washed up'....and 'pessimism'.......and darkness. "Noah" is a convoluted uber-moronic pagan's interpretation of the real-life Noah and flood; in some ways entertaining but also very very stupid -- and to reiterate, blasphemous. I unbiasedly give "Noah" a three-star rating.

One of my favorite T.V. shows of all time, is '1970s-'1980s "The Incredible Hulk" -starring the very underrated actor, Bill Bixby and his alter-ego........the renowned body-builder Lou Ferrigno. This T.V. show's 2-hour pilot episode was very, interesting, superbly-well done, and very dramatic: Bixby -otherwise known as 'David Banner'- was involved in a car accident in which he was unable to save his wife from dying (if my 'recall' is correct). In his frustration to his wife's death, Bixby then begins experimenting with small doses of gamma ray doses to see if it will stimulate a natural 'adrenalin reaction' -the type of reaction that he LACKED at the time that he felt he SHOULD HAVE HAD IT when he was unable to save his wife's life.

These controlled experiments eventually go awry....and Bixby in one freak accident of this controlled experiment transforms into the hulk, inadvertedly creating a fire which accidentally kills his colleague who was assisting him. I believe that Bill Bixby was born to play this role as the Hulk, and he plays it superbly; he is extremely likeable, charismatic, and it is very easy to empathize for him. He truly does come across as someone that is genuinely good......who is extremely tortured, always looking for a 'cure' to his dilemma...

Having never read any Marvel Comics of any type throughout my life -which is still currently the case- my knowledge and interpretations of what The Incredible Hulk is 'SUPPOSED' to closely resemble have always been based on the original '70s-80s T.V. series.

About 5 years ago, I 'attempted' to watch fairly new Louis Leterrier-directed "The Incredible Hulk" movie -starring Edward Norton. I gave up after only about 10 minutes, as I realized that it was in VERY STARK CONTRADICTION to the T.V. series and my notion of what the Incredible Hulk is supposed to be like.....that is,MUCH, MUCH, MUCH 'DUMBER' and purely action-oriented and grotesquely fake and stupid compared to the T.V. series.

That being said, very recently, I decided to give it one last 'go'.......and I finally just now -as I had nothing better to do- did watch in its entirety the Leterrier-directed "The Incredible Hulk."

In recent years, some of the best 'superhero' movies ever.....have been made.....partly as a result of the directors having the knowledge and incentive to fully show the superhero's 'character development' in a very thorough, engrossing, and realistic approach that has never been done in the past: For example, the Christopher Nolan-directed "Batman Begins" is easily the best Batman-directed movie ever, in my opinion; Batman's 'beginnings' are fully explained and very believably-developed in this film. To a great degree, this also applies to the movie "Spiderman" starring Tobey Maguire and the first "X-Men" movie starring Patrick Stewart.

In contradistinction, the movie 'The Incredible Hulk' begins very 'unintelligibly' with little or no character development concerning Bruce Banner's beginnings or how he became the Hulk. The movie begins with a drop of his blood accidentally falling into a soda bottle or something similar to that. Somewhat later the military is actively seeking him. He then transforms into the Hulk.

"The Incredible Hulk" pretty much is a pure mindless action movie which is centered on action sequences; nearly all of which are extremely unrealistic. The actual CGI used to create the Hulk's appearance is appallingly-fake....it is probably the MOST FAKE LOOKING 'humanoid' or 'monster' replication that I have EVER seen in ANY movie, EVER. It is absurdly-faked; grotesquely-fake. It is very possible that the actual APPEARANCE of the Hulk in this film -IS a much more accurate physical rendition of what the Hulk is SUPPOSED to look like than what he does in the T.V. series. It is also possible that in the D.C. Comics, that the Hulk is supposed to be utterly-invincible, unbelievably 'GARGANTUAN' (18 foot tall/several tons?), that he can take any amount of bullets from any type of gun or cannon, can leap DOZENS of feet in the air, and can free-fall 20,000 feet from a helicopter and not even break a bone.

The end result -whether this is an accurate D.C. Comics-replication or not- is a LUDICROUSLY-fake and stupid movie that maybe should have been 'animated' -as it is much more like a bona fida 'CARTOON' than anything that has any remote realism.

All in all, I rate "The Incredible Hulk" 4 stars -- because it does succeed, to an extent, as a dumb, pure action movie.....

In the "Karate Kid III," La Russo has returned home from Japan and his demeanor and Karate skills, very strangely, are so inept that one would never believe that he has ever so much as 'practiced' any kind of Karate move -much less been good enough at one point to have even entered a tournament -and even much less 'won' it. His physique is very 'non-linear, his athleticism and stamina completely non-existent -- his walk is reminiscent of a 'miniature Big Bird.' Everything about him is absolutely 'pathetic' to the point of being a 'parody' of his former self...so much that it is quite 'hilarious' to watch...

Throughout the movie he very effiminately talks and screams like Judy Garland -in the Wizard of Oz- and his naive face looks very similar to that of "Princess Leia." The "Karate bitch" is preyed upon by one of Kreese's friends -and an upcoming 'bully karateka' in numerous ways: La Russo is 'coerced' against his will into entering the annual tournament...and the gullible retard LaRusso is easily tricked by Kreese's pal that he wants to befriend and train LaRusso.

The movie -a parody of the previous two Karate Kid movies -has many absolutely hilarious moments: The 'bully karateka' slapping LaRusso around inside of the bonzai gift shop and then taking off in his car whilst doing a few 'doughnuts' before narrowly missing a train, LaRusso asking Miyagi to show him 'sweeps' and Miyagi instead showing Danielson how to use a 'broom,' Silver training Danielson to become an aggressive 'pitbull' of a fighter by having Danielson breaking wooden stilts, Danielson breaking the nose of a boy 'hitting' on his girlfriend at a dance, and especially the entire final tournament: the 'bully karateka' yelling profanities at Danielson telling him his karate isn't worth (*bleep*) and then being 'psyched out' by Danielson in the finale and losing the tournament.

The 1980s is a decade rife with 'awesomely-bad' movies (perhaps much more than any other decade) and The Karate Kid III -though in most repects a 'bad' movie- is nonetheless somehow VERY 're'-watcheable...and one of the most 'awesomely-bad' movies I've ever seen. It is also easily one of the most 'unintentionally'-funny (or WAS it 'intentionally-funny'?) movies I've ever seen. One of my favorite movies of all time. 5 stars.

After somehow 'finishing watching, "Rampage: Capital Punishment" my opinions is that this was as evil and nihilistic a movie as I had ever seen. I had contemplated 'giving up' on watching the movie many times throughout. I probably should have; there was absolutely no point to the movie. From Boll's point-of-view there are no 'good aspects' in society, whatsoever, and no God, either. I can meet him half-way there because there are many 'vain' things about society but his nihilistic mind shouldn't be allowed to be transferred to film. In criticizing Hollywood and scummy movies, he himself sets a precedent -as a hypocrite- in creating the most vile movie I've ever seen. The very name "Uwe Boll" seems like the name befitting of a very stupid person with a very stupid face.

Brendan Fletcher (Paul Teutel Jr.'s 'lost twin brother' who was forsaken by Paul Teutel Sr. and 'cast out' of the family which is why he changed his name to "Brendan Fletcher") has the 'generic' and 'typical' uber-stupid personality, voice, and face of so many people of his generation these days. A real idiot. I'm kind of glad that he was 'forsaken' by the Teutels years ago: He really is something of a bastard, a black-sheep, atheistic retard.

Uwe Boll -to direct a film like this (as well as a prequel and sequel) must be an evil nihilistic, atheistic, retard himself; he also has a very stupid face -not one you would think would be capable of much 'enlightenment' or 'imagination' in film-directing. Probably not coincidental he's German. He would've made a good, atypical, prototypical science-worshipping 'atheistic-Nazi.' One thing that 'lured' me into watching this movie was the premise of Fletcher killing "pigs." "Pigs" are Nazis, themselves -they are not 'good' guys. I love film directors that dare showing pigs being mowed down left and right and dying very graphically-violent deaths. One thing I DO relate to in the role of Fletcher is going into police stations and F.B.I. building and mowing down all kinds of "pigs" and law enforcement personnel. People that 'blindly' follow orders are nothing more than generic retards not 'good guys.' I've never met ANYONE that had ANYTHING to do with criminal justice that had anything resembling a personality -which is something that goes hand-in-hand (a PERSONALITY, and thus, SUBSTANCE) with truly being a 'good guy.' Other than that, there's nothing about this movie that isn't very nihilistic and evil. The realistic gunning down of innocent people didn't exactly 'flip my lid' -even as an "action-afficionado": 2 stars out of 10.

Until very recently, I had never seen Exit Wounds. Until I just now saw it for the first time ever, my opinion was that Fire Down Below (1997) was the last 'good' movie that Seagal ever starred in. After seeing Exit Wounds, I have had a change of opinion: Exit Wounds is definitely a better movie than Fire Down Below in most aspects...and THIS is Seagal's last good movie.

I had always had the impression that right around the early 2000s, Seagal was 'done': Washed up, out-of-shape, difficult to understand when he talks, too raspy and subdued a voice, etc. Exit Wounds was a shocking surprise: Seagal was not difficult to understand at all, he was in the best shape I've seen him in I believe since the early 90s, and looked nearly as adept at hand-to-hand combat and running, jumping, etc. as I've ever seen him.

The stunts in Exit Wounds -especially the car chases- were for the most part extremely well, done, exciting, hard-core and very realistic. The movie was quite action-packed...and both for the better and worse 'hard-core': Too much 'sensuality,' 'black culture,' feminism, gangsta feel, profanity, etc. This resulted in a lot of humorous situations but also some 'cringe-inducing' situations as well. Why would Steven Seagal take orders from a woman. Difficult to realistically believe. I wouldn't. Women DO belong 'barefoot and in the kitchen': This isn't 'chauvanismn'; it's 'wisdom' and 'enlightenment.' Overall, the movie was fairly enjoyable, quite 'watcheable,' and entertaining.

Goldeneye -the first Bond installment of the 90s and with newcomer Pierce Brosnan- is something of a return of the 70s-style Roger Moore James Bond films: The action and stunts and explosions are more stylistic -if not slightly more unrealistic- the plot and dialog is not overtly complicated and unintelligible, which makes for a much more 'accessible' James Bond movie than...say...Sean O' Connery and Timothy Dalton Bond movies... and a more humorous and 'cool' and likable type of Bond (Roger Moore-'esque') is introduced with Brosnan.

In a previous review of Timothy Dalton's last movie, I stated that Dalton was vastly underrated and probably the 'quintessential' James Bond of all Bond actors. It is very lastimable that Dalton starred in only two films. He had a very subdued and quiet intelligence, had the 'perfect' looks and actions for a James Bond, and was just 'coming into his own' when the series took a hiatus for about 6 years or so.

After a 're-visiting' of Pierce Brosnan's introduction in Goldeneye, I believe that I am still conflicted -not 100% certain- that Dalton is a more 'perfect' Bond than Brosnan: Brosnan has a humor, and extreme 'coolness,' likability, and confidence about him that is not equaled by any other Bond -be it Dalton, Moore, O'Connery, or Daniel Craig. Pierce Brosnan is -as I first remembered him- very, very cool and seems supremely confident and adept at hand-to-hand combat, running, jumping, leaping, and very quickly accurately aiming any kind of weaponry at his disposal. Perhaps the 'perfect' quintessential James Bond is a cross between Dalton and Brosnan. I believe it's a 'tie' between them both.

Goldeneye is everything a James Bond movie should be like: techno-gadgetry, awesome stunts, awesome explosions, and a very cool Bond. Even the Scottish actor, Alan Cumming, gives a very realistic performance as a bona fide Russian.

How do you rate a move like this? Casino Royale is, by far, the most graphic, violent, and mean-spirited James Bond movie that up until now I have ever seen. Some of the stunts and action sequences were among the most amazing that I have ever seen in a James Bond film. Daniel Craig has some great physical skills that seem to surpass those of all previous James Bonds. He does seem to have a decent amount of presence and personality and in these aspects makes for an adequate James Bond. And yet he is easily the most unlikeable and mean-spirited of all the James Bond actors that I have become familiar with. He isn't nearly as likable...or as good-natured as say, Roger Moore...or even Pierce Brosnan (perhaps the most 'accurate' incarnation of any of the Bonds boys).

The movie -as nearly all movies do- was clearly a microcosm of the era it was released in 2000s. I was a little annoyed at seeing Judi Dench using the vile and immature language of today with phrases that included "a**" and "prick." It also cheapened the movie to see Daniel Craig say "...scratch my 'effin' balls..." Can you imagine phraseology like this being used by previous Bond actors?

At 2 1/2 hours long I felt that the movie was very clearly 'overtly' long...and though the pacing was fine I felt that the action sequences were somewhat too far in between. Most of the way through the movie, I was 'waiting' for the movie to end and kept on 'pausing' the movie to find out how much time there was left. The cinematography and FX were very good......and yet all things considered I really didn't enjoy this movie at all.

How do you rate a movie like this?

YOU don't; I do: 4 1/2 stars.

No Country For Old Men is a dumb, pointless, purposeless, UBER-overrated, overtly-graphic and mean-spirited movie from very overrated directors (Coen Brothers). The cinematography is, admittedly, great and the movie is at least 'watcheable.' The movie starts out well and seems very compelling for awhile...but goes downhill throughout and the story seems to be half-concocted: Why spoil the movie with the untimely, undramatic, and unimportant death Bardem's primary adversary -Josh Brolin? Why not continue the duel between Javier Bardem and Josh Brolin leading to an epic and exciting showdown between the two at the end of the movie? Tommy Lee Jones looks and seems washed up (not because he seems uninterested) and mumbles throughout the movie. This is easily his worst performance I've ever seen. Javier Bardem is detestable and extremely mean-spirited -whether he was intended to be that way or not. He seems like an extremely dumb person and unlikeable person in real life who's acting skills are extremely-limited. When he speaks dialog in No Country for Old Men he sounds like a quasi-retard with a low I.Q. This is probably the only type of role he could ever play, me-thinks.

The whole movie 'feels' completely devoid of purpose and completely 'dead.' I do enjoy 'violent' movies, perhaps more than I should, but like many modern flics, N.C.F.O.M. seems like nothing more than an engine for an occasional pointless, violent and overtly graphic death of someone. The lack of music throughout movie enhances the 'dead' ambiance of the movie. The fact that the public and 'critics' give a movie like this 'UNANIMOUS' high-ratings shows what an incredibly-stupid society it is that we live in.

In general, I'm not a fan of 'modern' horror movies -i.e. those that have come out in the past 20 or so years. I feel that some of the better and best horror movies were made in the '70s and '80s. That being said, I 'attempted' to watch -for the first time ever- "The Fog" very recently...and somehow managed to get only about 3/4 the way through the movie before 'giving up.' It was bad enough that even having nothing better to do, and being bored, I could not finish this movie. I did have somewhat high expectations for "The Fog" since it is an early '80s horror movie. However, I thought that nearly every aspect of the movie sucked: There was very little 'action,' most of the pacing was very, very boring, uneventful and slow...and the acting was absolutely atrocious. It had a very amateur, incoherent 'quality' as though John Carpenter was attempting his first movie, ever. His "Dark Star" collegiate project from the early '70s is a much, much better movie than "The Fog," in my opinion. I give "The Fog" (having watched it through 3/4 of the movie) a 3 out of 10.

In comparison I feel that other horror movies of the same era -including some that are very lowly-rated by critics and public alike- such as The Amityville Horror (the original not remake), Amityville 2 (early 80s), The Thing (original), and most others from the same era are all MUCH better movies. I even very recently watched The Hills Have Eyes (original 70s version) and in my opinion that movie also was a good movie and a much better movie than "The Fog."