seawolfvii Reviews

Ad Astra (2019)

Cats in the cradle...of space....meh.

[5/10 · 20 September 2019]

It was never quite clear whether the dad caused the problem, found the problem or what I thought he was actually doing, trying to fix the problem.

I love space I love the concepts and I love thinking about it but this movie, while there are some pretty pictures, never was thought-provoking enough. There was never enough substance to really think about what if. So if I want interesting pictures of space I'll go to hubblesite.

And while the acting was good there wasn't enough substance in the characters or their 'tragic' plights to become emotionally invested in them or their purpose. It was rather blah. It felt more like, 'oh hey I need to go save the world from/with/in stead of my dad I'll be back after lunch.' Even the, 'hey your dad killed my family' didn't have enough staging and climactic build up to elicit any emotion. And the personal narrative throughout the film didn't really contribute much towards emotional investment during the film. I guess because of how it was done there just wasn't enough substance or presentation of the plight of the planet to elicit any emotion either.

And there was plenty of confusion. In the beginning the plot seemed simple enough. But some things were just whacked. Like how did the main character launch himself off of a whirling antenna array through space, through an astroid field with his 'Captain America shield' which would've stopped his progress. Only to perfectly land on his spaceship some hundreds of thousands of kilometers away? His suit jets? Also if you knew that your father so completely believed that what he was doing was right then you would've known he wouldn't have just suited up to go home with you. And when they were outside of the ship did he jettison himself away from his son or was he knocked away by some part of the ship? That part was confusing. Because if he had totally believed that his purpose was to find intelligent life elsewhere then he wouldn't have just gone outside of the ship and then committed suicide. He was pretty emphatic that he only cared about the mission and this purpose.

Overall I didn't leave the movie with a sense of awe for space, with a feeling a renewed faith in humanity, or even that I had spent my money well. I wouldn't pay to go see it again. I probably won't even see it again. It wasn't bad it just wasn't that good.

Fast & Furious Presents: Hobbs & Shaw (2019)

Decent entertainment

[6/10 · 7 September 2019]

There's some names that I really liked in this movie. I think they all had a really pretty good chemistry. Simple plot line. I like the taking it to Samoa (aka Hawaii). And the climax was interesting but slightly expected.

What I didn't like was the indestructibility of Idris Elba's character. I get it he's an enhanced human. But a building falls on him, it crushes the back of a size-able rig and he's just standing there like nothing happened. Not even dusty not limping or even gasping for breath. That's ridiculous. And in the opening scene there are six guys fully trained soldiers plus one or two others and he managed to take them all out standing 10 feet away or more and they don't get off a shot that's stupid. I get that you want to establish him as super cool but that's just silly.

Vanessa Kirby did a good job although there were a couple points that really boggled my mind. Mainly one near the end where she walks towards the helicopter??!??! And while I like the helicopter chase scene is still his baffling as to why there was no more air support for this most important mission.

And when they were in the Eteon HQ and there are only three people (4 with the scientist) and yet a group of 30 to 40 who can't seem to fire in the same direction at them?!??

And the chase through the London Street was pretty cool but again there's not a cop to be found. And these Eteon thugs were standing there masks on and uniforms, had automatic machine guns and nobody bothered them. Not a police car, beat cop, a parking enforcement officer, nada! 14,670 people per square mile and nada.

I did like their travels and to Samoa (Kaua'i) and I loved all the vehicles in this movie really cool especially a lot of those off-road types.

Overall it was entertaining slightly humorous fun. I don't know that I'd watch a sequel in the theater.

Alita: Battle Angel (2019)

Very Good Anime/Sci-Fy

[7/10 · 2 July 2019]

I saw the movie on a plane but after having seen it I would've gladly paid for a ticket in the theater. It was a nice mix of animation with all the sci-fi technologies we have today plus a good storyline, classic boy meets girl with some interesting twists. I'd see it again.

It was unclear to me why she with all her powers wouldn't go up to the 'mothership'. It wasn't clear why you had to be the champion to go up. I don't know maybe they were planning on a sequel.

Hellboy (2019)

A Solid Meh

[4/10 · 2 July 2019]

Too convoluted, seems like the writers were trying too hard to take the movie plot into a prequel. And while it did answer a few questions overall it was weak. And just like today's movies FX was good. Acting wasn't horrible but wasn't outstanding. And when will we drop King Authur? Soooo played.

I won't comment on comic book accuracy or many references to the previous iterations but I'm just glad I didn't pay for a ticket. Probably won't see it again but I did like the apocalyptic version of hellboy and the flaming sword.

Battleship (2012)

Entertaining Game to Movie

[6/10 · 14 November 2017]

It was a good action/sci-fi thrill ride. Good music, good CGI and not too bad acting. The plot was predictable though how it unfolded wasn't. And the humor was good, well placed and not too cheesy.

The story line wasn't strong but had nice predictable and yet still some surprise sci-fi feel to it. Not a huge fan of the leap-frogging alien "boats", it was my least favorite part, but I guess they were trying to stay true to the game. And didn't really like the wheelie, destructive projectiles much but...whatever.

The acting wasn't great (5-6/10) but wan't horrible either.

The cinematography I liked because I like this modern age of CGI and FX! Sure you can have too much but this isn't Casablanca so throw plenty of CGI in there!

I wasn't expecting a Shawshank Redemptive drama, a Sixth Sense revelation or a Fifty Shades of emotional roller coaster. I was expecting action, and I got it. I was hoping for good music to accompany the action, and I got it! And finally...I love battleships (not the movie but the ship). You want a tear-jerker you're in the wrong genre. You want an emotionally-filled feel good movie, wrong genre. You want a meaning-of-life, soul-searching movie...move on. You want an action movie with good CGI, great music, buttkicker-of-a-movie..you're in the right place. That's why I gave it a 6/10. P.S. I loved Pacific Rim, Armageddon and Transformers for the some of the same reasons.

The Lost City of Z (2016)

Unremarkable Film for a Remarkable Life

[6/10 · 22 September 2017]

I enjoy the idea of bringing to life real-life adventurers/explorers. I understand there will be some artistic license in the story-telling (writing), cinematography, and editing. I read the book prior to seeing the movie. It was pure circumstance that the movie was out in a near-by theater just as I had finished the book. And as a final precursory note, I had started the book a while ago and don't remember all the details so I can't say to what degree it followed the general story of the book only that it did not seem to as much. Which, yes, tends to be the way of things. Though I think the book was very good, tough to put together so many pieces of research and story but still good.

Possible Spoilers Alert

It was a rather long movie (2:21) for having communicated so little to the audience. You had to "piece together" much of what was said, with what you saw (or think you saw) on the screen. There was much left to doubt. But so much that could have been communicated with perhaps a story teller/narrator. I mean tell us names of tribes, uniqueness of tribes, locations (more than were told), etc... Use the story-telling like in "The Secret Life of Walter Mitty" where he was journeying into the mountains in search of Sean O'Connell (Sean Penn). You know with the journal entry on screen, the music and the video.

I wasn't expecting an action-packed, archaeological thrill ride of Indiana Jones proportion but take lessons from "The Medicine Man", "The Emerald Forest" or other similar Amazonian films and tell us more what's going on. Tell us those are maggots eating his flesh, not just there is disease and such. I think Percy, Jack and Jack's close friend Raleigh were adventuring together but Raleigh was no where to be found. Sure a nice touching story of father and son but still.

And it would have been fine to end with the "Find a place for their spirits" if you have given use the desperation and hopelessness, the lack of closure that his wife, son (Brian) and daughter felt. Brian, in the book, went looking for his father, brother and Raleigh. You wouldn't have to spend more than 15 minutes on "Brian" (maybe at the end when Percy and Jack were "being killed???") but it could have given the audience the sense of mystery, desperation and emptiness that surrounded the lives of his mother and sister at not knowing for sure if Fawcett, or Jack, were dead or alive.

But I guess no one likes to learn from movies anymore, no one likes a truly great story. Or maybe the movie makers just didn't pull it off.

Lastly, movies that end with script on the screen are, in my opinion, are a lazy way to finish and often more of a let-down than in support of the story. Give us a "vision" of what Brian saw in his mind that was the lost city of "Z" instead of a paltry script on a movie screen. You know, have him standing there in a tribal village, and have the camera pan-out into a drone-view traveling along the ancient city like in the book, "I began to picture the flutists and dancers in one of the old plazas. I pictured them living in mound-shaped two-story houses, the houses not scattered but in endless rows, ... I pictured the dancers crossing moats and passing through tall palisade fences, moving from one village to the next along wide boulevards and bridges and causeways" (from the book) with some appropriate wording, maybe lines from Fawcett's journal, or some of the quotes his referenced from other authors. But the ending was very anti-climatic instead.

So much potential...such a remarkable explorer, considered one of the last great solo explorers, and yet such an unremarkable film.

Vikings (2013–2020)

Good, but not 8+

[7/10 · 19 August 2017]

Beautiful scenery and cinematography. Great camera-work and scenes. Good acting generally (see below). It's not a bad show but not an 8...solid 6.5 - 7. Depicted the vikings as a bit broodish...I don't agree, but then I'm sure I know little of the truth. I'd like to have seen a little more tough vikings not just gore. But nice to have some semblance of history in there.

Perhaps a bit spoiling, but not much. The lead (Ragnar) skulks a lot, not the tall-standing, confident Northman of prowess that I'd expect with so much history, story and legend. And that freak Floki...he could be a lot less...stupid and still be plenty eccentric. And a woman (I don't care if she is "Viking", I know, I know...shield maiden but at a foot shorter than an English man and she easily overpowers him. Again placating the femme fatale-ists and the viking fans. Sure, why wouldn't you...gets ratings. I mean if we are going for ratings...make her a foot taller and let's put horns on helmets!

Transformers: The Last Knight (2017)

How to Enjoy Transformers

[7/10 · 24 June 2017]

I rated it a 7 because 6.5 wasn't available. I admit the movie doesn't have a lot of depth but that's not why I enjoy these types of films. If you're looking for character depth, amazing acting and a brilliant story-line...first you'll have to go back to the 50s for movies. The vast majority of good acting has long since been eaten (Spoiler? like the cruiser) by CGI, graphics, lack-luster editing, etc... Even the Academy Awards struggle to find worthy recipients, imo. This movie had all the things I watch such a movie for, cars and trucks, robots, machines, military machines, cool weapons, and this one even more with battle-axe wielding robots. All for some good ole bashing, fighting, CRASH, BAM and KABLOEE with the bass turned up nice and loud! I didn't enter the theater expecting "Last of the Mohicans" (one of my all time favs) so I got what I wanted...and a little more. I've never been a fan of all the sarcastic, "hip" robots they put in the films, ruined the second one for me with those stupid robots. But I loved Extinction...loved the dinobots! No, it's not an 10 out of 10, or even an 8 out of 10...but it's the smashumup stuff I really like to watch sometimes. Thanks Michael Bay, I'll pay to watch you're movies (when I'm in the mood) every time.

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (2013)

Very good but lacking the greatness of the literary prowess of Tolkien

[7/10 · 12 December 2013]

Overall the movie was good even very good, 6.5 to 7 stars. I really enjoyed the actors, settings, scenes, and some of the CGI etc, but I left lacking the positive feelings/emotions that the last 2 hours and 41 minutes were well spent. I think the writers were more interested in making a name for themselves than adding to the legacy of the J.R.R. Tolkien series. There was simply too much embellishment where none was needed. The original storyline was brilliant, to change it to become your own Mr. Jackson (writers and the rest of you) detracted from what could have been great. I'm sure in the movie industry there are the investors other business people who push for more thrill (which these days translates to CGI) to increase the target audience thereby increasing the ROI. Okay sure, I get it, movie making is a business…but this movie could have been really great for Tolkienists, fantasy buffs, modern movie goers, from old to young, women and men alike…instead I think you sold out to pay for the ridiculous $200 million production cost (which is still baffling given the excessive CGI) turning an 8 or 9 star movie into a paltry homage to a great book and great writer.

I watched "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" the day before I saw The Hobbit Part 2 to kind of sync movie with movie. I enjoyed the first Hobbit movie quite a bit but had a hard time syncing the first with the second…the transition was vague. I think they were trying to link this second Hobbit movie to the first LotR movie (Fellowship of the Rings)? It seemed awkward at best. I also watched The Hobbit (cartoon) created by Rankin/Bass in 1977 just because I recall being fond of it when I was a kid and I wanted to remember some of what the characters said/did in the cartoon version perhaps with expectations of a more enjoyable Desolation of Smaug through modern movie magic.

Let me start with the pronunciation of the dragon's name. I'm sure Americans mispronounce "Smaug" and if Mr. Tolkien intended it to be "Sma oog" then I apologize but I liked the cartoon version which was more like "Smog." If you say each pronunciation with a deep dragonesque voice, 'Smog' sounds much more frightening (and endearing, unless you live in a big city). The heavily aspirated "au" makes it sound like a pre-pubescent teenage boy with a heavy southern (US) accent (Ma name is Smaug, I live in Arabarn. Why dontch'all come over to air house fer supper). Mr. Boone has long gone from this world (RIP) but I really liked his voice as Smaug in the cartoon version, though to his credit (and probably sound mixing) Mr. Cumberbatch did a splendid job as well.

I got the impression that Bilbo was "invisible" with much of his conversation with Smaug. Perhaps it was the fact the book said as much. And perhaps writers of The Hobbit 2 were trying to show the magnificence of Smaug and the insignificance of Bilbo so his ring was off the rest of the scene(s). The literary power of Smaug describing himself was less than impressive in this movie. Why would they compare his hide to iron, because modern movie goers relate more to iron than shields? The literary version was much better, "My armour is like tenfold shields, my teeth are swords, my claws spears, the shock of my tail a thunderbolt, my wings a hurricane, and my breath death."

And the melting statue which liquefies (or didn't cool) almost instantly bathing Smaug in gold…oh my *sigh*. Yes, Smaug looked cool as a gold dragon. Maybe this scene was for chemists (you know attract a wider audience) showing how the melting point of gold is much lower than that of iron. And I'm sure one could draw some literary semblance there. Smaug had become too greedy he was gold likening him to King Midas, but why? Again *sigh*.

Orlando Bloom plays a brilliant Legolas…but his character isn't even in The Hobbit. Did they have a contractual agreement to put him in, or was he so popular in the first three LotR series they felt the movie needed more movie star cache to help pay for the bloated budget? I liked him as a LotR character, he plays a great elf. You want to include him because there were many woodland elves in the book, I'm sure he could be one of them. But to create those atrociously long CGI scenes (hunting orcs, barrel riding, fighting in town, chase scene out of town with Legolas' riding a horribly CGI'd horse), enough with the excessive CGI elf fighting. Yes we are supposed to hate orcs (secretly I like some of them, hee hee). But there were probably 100's of orcs coming out of every crack and crevice and basically two people killing most of them over the course of tens of miles with a little help from the "em-barrelled" dwarfs (pulling weapons out of their cracks and crevices I guess).

I love today's fighting females, villains and heroines! And I enjoyed seeing Tauriel in the movie. Ms. Lilly does a great job and her Albertan beauty serves the female elf role well. And it was nice to see the blossoming love between her and Kili to say little of the nice addition of mixed-race relations to a modern movie. There are so many talented and beautiful actresses out there. But again, she wasn't even in the book, creative license you say…okay.

My list is long of grievances but to be fair my list of congratulatory remarks is also long. Let me sum it up by saying, 'Well done, could have been better, stop CGI-ing everything, movie goers don't drink or eat before going to the movie…2 hours and 41 minutes is a near impossible stretch to endure with even the most formidable of bladders.'

The Wolverine (2013)

Wolverine roots...I suppose, but nothing spectacular.

[6/10 · 24 July 2013]

I am a fan, have been for decades, but not what you'd call a comic book geek (compliment intended). With that, I don't know where or how this movie coordinates or deviates from the comics. So my review is primarily movie-goer or cinematographic-based.

It was a good movie, solid cast. I really enjoyed the Japanese actors and what they brought to the movie. I think they gave the movie the bump up to 6.5 stars (from 5.5 where it would have been if it the rest of the movie were like the beginning) I hope to see more action movies from Ms. Fukushima and Ms. Okamoto could do well in many genera's. The Wolverine...can't die. And apparently neither can the Wolverine movies. Mr. Jackman does a great job as Wolverine but not his best (I mean it objectively, I'm sure he did his best). I feel the writers have relegated themselves to simplistic one-liners which maybe is supposed lend credibility to the "wildness" or simplicity of the character but I think with a little better writing we could get a better storyline and more exciting climactic lines. Giving us a real Wolverine punch when he finishes a foe.

Also I think if they wanted to add a more authentic Japanese flavor they should have hired Japanese cultural consultants. And maybe even just as an adviser, Quentin Tarantino.

The fight scenes were good, very good...a little blurry but I guess that's how the cinematographers, choreographers, producers, editors, etc...create the intensity by allowing the human mind to fill-in the gaps.

The music was good, a few times it was powerful (appropriate, timely, etc...) but other times it was weak. A little more Japanese flavor I think would have lent credibility to the setting flavor. Try a Japanese flute (the Shakuhachi).

Basically to sum it up: If you want to produce a good Wolverine roots movie, write it as Wolverine not as Wolverine the X-man. Too many ties. I'll probably always go see a Wolverine movie in the theater (and thus support them) but this one was not great (I liked X-Men Origins: Wolverine better). And I'll probably still add it to my movie collection but I'll wait a while and get it at a discount.

Parts I had a problem with ******* Spoiler Alert ******* The bear...come on don't skimp with the intro of the bear, get a real bear! The part where the bear is dying...okay fine "design a dying bear" but where the bear is walking they should have used a real bear. I know Bart the bear is dead but he has successors (Little Bart who did a great job in Game of Thrones) is doing well in the movies. And the bear peeing on the tree...why? Lame. And you didn't need to "introduce" poison with that whole scene (Bear, dead bear, bar brawl, poison) to let the audience know there was such thing as poison arrows (weapons). Cause if they were trying to tie it in with Viper...that was so tenuous you could have put me in the movie with a churro and I would have made as much sense as a lead-in.

And again I loved Rila as Yukio in this movie (especially her fight scene with Shingen) but she slices a bottle...and it doesn't "fall" in half until seconds later? Booo...hiss. The chair fine, the bottle should have been shown first and then the chair.

Ninjas...I know they are "NINJAS" (emphasis intended) but when they are killing people, and there were two times I counted at the Yashida estate...they did it right in front of guards who were apparently sleeping while standing.

This is where I show my lack of comic geekness but how does he (Wolverine) get adamantium back on his bone claws? Did he ever get his adamantium coated claws cut off like that in the comics?

The parting line with the silver samurai was weak. I loved the big ole Silver Samurai (Samurai are just cool). But the parting line...weak. Try this, "You had your life and the only good of you that will live on is your granddaughter. You wanted me to come to say good-bye...well sayonara bub (Toss him off the edge)." Or something like that, just the "You wanted me to say goodbye...sayonara" was not a punch or even a slap.

And instead of kissing Mariko at the end (which is somewhat disrespectful in public in Japanese culture)...perhaps he could have kissed each of them on the cheek and said, "My two favorite Japanese women." or something.

The Lone Ranger (2013)

Okay film, a little exciting, a little humorous and a lot lacking.

[5/10 · 12 July 2013]

The writing, directing and producing failed. The acting probably failed because of the writing. Too much lean on past successes.

I was hoping for a more grown-up version of the Lone Ranger. More the Wolverine of "Origins" not the Wolverine of "The X-men". More like the Dark Knight series as opposed to the 90's Batman blunders. What I was hoping for was darker or serious perhaps, with a little more substance. What I got...an incompatible mix of Inspector Gadget, Wild Wild West, Deputy Dog and the Indian from Bugs Bunny cartoons (the doofus Indian not little Hiawatha).

5 stars, 3 of which are for cinematography, 1 is for the horse and the actors, writers, producers and directors can share the last star.

******* Spoiler Alert ******** Didn't like the narration, Princess Bride did it fairly well but Lone Ranger didn't. Too distracting.

Anyone, if you want to reuse thematic ideas from other movies (the Jack Sparrow swinging from ropes) fine, but just clips! It took you 2 minutes of swinging from ropes to demonstrate your Pirates references that I got in 5 seconds. Overkill = under-enjoyed.

I was hoping for a more grown-up version, not rated "R" but a darker, more serious Lone Ranger and Tonto. As it turns out the "dark" (PG-13) of Fitchner's character (and his goons) with the town and all the busty women mixed with the "G" rated Deputy Dog for the Lone Ranger and you fail. Yes I like Deputy Dog but not as the Lone Ranger. Epic Fail.

Why not have the basics of the Lone Ranger theme song with modern variations? It's like they just cut-and-pasted the original theme into one part of the movie. I half-expected to hear the old scratch of a needle on vinyl...it was out of place and ineffective.

And seriously with the horse jumps from buildings and trains? WTH? If I want magic flying horses I'll turn to Clash of the Titans (1981).

Depp did fairly well I think. I liked the make-up though some movie-goers had a problem with it. My qualms were with too much Jack Sparrow in the Lone Ranger.

Hammer did fairly well. If they were expecting him to be a bumbling buffoon then he nailed it, great acting! Otherwise they just destroyed the courageousness, nobility, and toughness which I think is the essence of the Lone Ranger.

The Horse was probably the better actor. My expectations of the horse's acting skill was lower than what I got. And the horse wasn't listed in the credits poor Silver (his real and acting name). Said Bobby Lovgren (Silver's handler), "...Silver is such a good, quiet horse with such a great attitude. He has real personality." Maybe the movie should have been called, "Silver Rides again". :/

Pacific Rim (2013)

Voltron meets Godzilla in a Rocky/Transformers slug-fest

[7/10 · 12 July 2013]

I saw trailers before and was hopeful.

What I got was a knock-down awesome robot vs. monster movie. I wasn't looking for the next Transformers (though I really liked the first one, less with the dogs and teenage awkwardness and more with the robots), I wasn't looking for a Coppola/North best written screenplay like "Patton", I wasn't looking for a dramatic Oscar-winning performance of "English Patient" (which I fell-asleep in a few times because of boredom) I wasn't expecting great cinematography or musical score...but the graphics, CGI and music turned out to be effective and quite good.

If you went (or will go) expecting the next cinematic masterpiece like "Dances with Wolves", or a classically written and well acted "Casablanca" you're going for the wrong reasons. This is Die Hard (1, not 5...5 was a disgrace to the Die Hard name), this is Rocky (again 1, or 2), this movie is a little Real Steel with more fighting, and monsters, but without all the cheesy crap.

It was awesome! Thrilling and just a great remake (and a better make) of movie combo: classic cartoons and monster movies. If this movie had come out when I was a boy, 20 odd years ago, I probably would have seen it 10 times at the theater, bought the movie and then watched it at least once-a-week till I wore out the tape. It's not the wussy Power Ranger crap.

The things I liked: Robots, monsters, robots and monsters fighting, technology. Big machines, big machine sounds. Big cool robots and big cool robot sounds smashing big gruesome, maniacal alien monsters hell-bent on destruction.

****** Spoiler Alert ****** The plot, simple? Yes very. Often predictable outcomes. The acting was average. The writing didn't help the average acting.

I saw it in a foreign country so I'm not sure if the audio was goofed but when Mako meets Raleigh her lips were speaking Japanese but audio was English and he answered in-kind and the only subtitles I got were in the foreign language (not Japanese or English). I don't know if that was intentional, you know the old Samurai movies where the actors were speaking Japanese but audio was English voice-overs. If so now that I think about it, it could be pretty funny.

Please stop with all the "Battle Speeches" Idris did a great job in the movie overall but those last-stand battle speeches were finished in Braveheart (yes that was 1995).

But I loved the Voltron-esque (or that era of genre robot movies) and Godzilla-esque references.