Change Your Image
droekaerts
Reviews
Hooten & the Lady (2016)
Perfect - if you're 11
Now three episodes in, I think I have given this show all it deserves. Not that Hooten and the Lady is "bad" perse, it is just aimed at the wrong audience. If this was a show on a children's network, airing between 2-5pm it would be perfect. It has exactly that level of intelligence and dialogue and my kids (8) love it. Now if you take that same show and broadcast it at 9pm, targeted at an adult audience it does not work that well anymore. The story line is not very clever and quite repetitive. The characters are cardboard cut-outs of cartoon heroes and villains. And most annoyingly, random CGI animals tend to show up in climates and locations where we (and even an 11 year old) know they could not possibly exist. For a channel that has given us the likes of 'Game of Thrones', 'Billionaires', 'The Affair' and 'Gommorah' I think they have underestimated their audience with this one ... And just for the record, it is nothing like Indiana Jones or Romancing the Stone ... It's rushed, formulaic and with lots of ham acting never leaving the viewer satisfied, just frustrated at what it could have been as opposed to what it is (or tries to be). If this gets another season, let's hope it's for the matinée slot.
The Lone Ranger (2013)
Awful movie, only surpassed by the FAKE reviews on this site
Oh deary me -
Where to start? This is one clunky mess from start to end. The script is written by someone who does not know which target audience to reach (children? nostalgic mid lifers? tweens?) or what genre to be (western? super hero movie? comedy? action?). Basically it is bad on an epic level.
And that's just the script. Let's not mention the "acting" of both leads. Armie Hammer has never been God's gift to acting but Depp also disappoints. It is simply not funny - it is simply not exciting - it is simply extremely boring and very loooooooooooooooooong.
If we could filter IMDb on "real" reviews versus "fake - aka sponsored by the producers" there would be a more balanced review: 90% of the people who saw this movie (including the critics) think it is bad. 10% did enjoy it, and I am very happy for them.
When you read the "positive" reviews it is so painstakingly easy to separate the genuine user reviews from the paid for reviews (i.e. the complete absence of spelling mistakes, the lack of use of slang or any emotive language, the continuous urging and pushing to go and see it, to 'check it out for yourself' ...) If this trend continues and IMDb does not filter these out (look at torrent sites, they are very good at distinguishing fake from real) I am afraid movie buffs will turn to a new provider shortly.
For all the people out there who want a real review: it stinks. And to all the fakers out there: THE CRITICS WERE RIGHT THIS TIME.
Thank you
Flight (2012)
A near miss ...
This is another dime in a dozen ... and it seems that one sure way to get an Oscar nomination will always point towards playing an alcoholic, an addict or a prostitute.
Denzel does not disappoint and gives a decent portrayal of an alcoholic. Sadly it is no longer original. To spend over two hours looking at addicts and alcoholics is sad in any case. What makes this particularly boring is that this has been done umpteen times before and brings absolutely nothing new.
Leaving Las Vegas with Nicholas Cage and Elisabeth Shue was the first (and best) in its kind. This is EXACTLY the same script. The only difference is that Denzel is a pilot ... they should have called it 'Leaving the Airline' or better 'Copy Leaving Las Vegas!'
Cloud Atlas (2012)
Senseless and oh so ... boring
After reading a lot of encouraging reviews on IMDb I was looking forward to seeing this movie. It was quoted 'epic' quite a few times. Well let me get straight to the point: epic it was most certainly not. I would like to warn people from jumping in and expecting a wonderfully complex, yet flawlessly executed journey across time ... So what went wrong? The idea is sound, the actors are good? Well there are a few things that are wrong. Let's start with the script ... it is either overly complex (as some reviews point out correctly) or plain silly (as others point out correctly as well). The same set of actors are portraying different characters in different eras. This becomes so dull and silly that at times you genuinely believe you are back in the 90s watching an Eddie Murphy movie where he plays multiple characters. At least the intention of Eddie Murphy was to be funny. To see this set of actors putting on different accents and dragged into different ethnicities is laughable to the point of painful. I would have definitely fired the make up artists on the spot. Seeing Tom Hanks with another prosthetic nose and false teeth, or Hally Berry as a white woman is over the top. If you do want a great laugh though, fast forward to the part in the future, where suddenly everyone is supposed to look Asian. Asian? They all look like they have had a bad reaction to a bee sting ... sigh ...
I have to be honest. I did not pay to see this movie, which was godsend. Out of respect of the theatre owner I did have to sit through it. If I had paid for this I would have walked out after the second 'costume change' of the actors.
Whoever believes this is an epic tale needs to look up epic in the dictionary (or Google it these days). I am sure you will find the following titles under your definition of epic: Waterworld - Hudson Hawk - Dick Tracy - to name a few. All very expensive movies who just ... didn't deliver! Or maybe IMDb is now truly taken over by the studios with thousands of people in a sweatshop somewhere saying this is 'oh so amazing'.
Comparing this to Stanley Kubrick is an insult ... a real insult. At least the critics got it right!
It's a turd ... avoid at all cost ... unless you are so bored the only alternative is to slit your wrists (which might actually be more fun).
It's Complicated (2009)
A not so traditional romcom
The idea of the movie is an original twist on the romcom formula and it proves to work.
A movie like this needs two things: a good script and a good cast and it had plenty of both. Alec Baldwin does a magnificent job, and so does a 'toned down' Steve Martin. Meryl Streep obviously knows her craft, yet I found her performance rather irritating and not en par with the male leads.
The story is engaging, funny, warming and sad at times and keeps you interested until the very end.
A great movie to see with your girlfriend/wife or ... I guess your mother.
Daybreakers (2009)
Captures your interest, but loses it quickly thereafter
Another good attempt to spice up the Vampire-genre, yet the originality at first is quickly overshadowed by the predictable script and heavy borrowing of other movies.
The cinematography is perfect, in both night time and day time shots. The actors do what is expected of them and deliver a solid performance.
What really makes it a bit sub-par is that the movie feels as a bit of a mix of Matrix elements (the boring parts), Demolition Man (the 'futuristic' parts) and Underworld (the 'good' Vampire among the 'bad' ones). When I read the script originally I thought the concept was innovative, and it could have been a genre defining movie. Sadly it isn't and gives in too easily to cheap tricks to keep both scifi and horror fans interested.
To be perfectly honest, and a lot of you will disagree, I actually preferred the less 'dramatically acclaimed' Underworld.
Still good worth for your money if you like Vampires and/or scifi although I think the hardcore fans will probably stick with the likes of Blade ...
Avatar (2009)
Isn't this what movie-making is all about?
There are many opinions on Avatar. There are clearly believers, and fierce critics. The mere fact that so many people are talking about it, including myself, must mean that it struck a note with the masses. Any publicity is good publicity after all, no?
Hmmm - Avatar. As many of you I had very high expectations, and to be perfectly honest, I was not disappointed. The execution is flawless and the visuals are stunning and mesmerising. The subtlety of the 3D makes it stand apart from the traditional Disney World 'jump in your face' sequences.
There is however a small leap of faith to be made, and as pointed out correctly by many critics of the movie, the story is not really original. It has been told before, it is predictable, but then aren't all stories derived from an older version? There are only so many stories to tell and I can compare most 'original' movies to an obscure predecessor.
If you let yourself be swept away by it, and ignore the 'intellectually superior' attitude that blocks you from seeing past the simplicity, you are in for a beautifully crafted love story, good vs. evil in its most basic form. Only this time it has a twist: the new technology allows you to be sucked into the story, but you have to be able to let go and enjoy the ride.
If you would read the script of Star Wars before it was visually realised by George Lucas, you might have concluded the story was somewhat childish. And now this is heralded as one of the best movies of all times. It was visually spellbinding for its time, withstood the test of time, and all that with a simple and naive storyline we all came to love and cherish. What makes Avatar so different from this? Not much. The story is simple and stripped of all unnecessary character development to give the viewer an 'experience', 'an emotional feeling', and on that level, it is unsurpassed in beauty and sensitivity. It will have many teenagers look back with happy thoughts in their thirties of the time they saw Avatar on the big screen.
Well done James Cameron for bringing us something old (that works) but presented in a way that is simply revolutionary. Kudos to you for writing the story yourself although it is not your forte. Lord of the Rings was the last time I was wowed, and a lot of that was the combination of story and groundbreaking visuals. But let's not forget that it was based on a great book, Star Wars nor Avatar are, which makes them - in my opinion - slightly more original. Did you ever wonder what LOTR would have looked like with Cameron at the helm?
Finally, this movie is revolutionary and I starkly disagree with people who say it is not. Blaming the studios for substituting a good story with use of expensive technology and expensive special effects is a dated excuse. The technology is here to stay, and James Cameron has opened the road for many directors/screenwriters to take advantage of this technology as the studios are probably queing up now the business case has proved the investment to be a luctrative.
Ridley Scott and Steven Spielberg are already lined up for making movies using this very same technology - so to all people unhappy with the story - scripts with more depth are bound to come.
Maybe not the greatest story, but one of the best cinematic experiences since Star Wars and Lord of the Rings.
I tell everyone: go see it without prejudice, and you might just LOVE it. I did ...