Change Your Image
lchazbits30
Reviews
Saw 3D (2010)
Saw 3D- Finally it's over
This review is going to be short and to the point.
It was pointless to make it a 3D Movie. The experience would have been just as vulgar and disgusting and CHEAPER if it was 2D.
The storyline: Well, I think we can all agree the any possible interesting storyline was 100% gone after Saw IV so I had zero "storyline" expectations.
The characters: There is not one interesting character in the story and when it's accompanied by bottom notch acting it becomes laughable.
The gore: Top notch kill scenes. The only apparent creativity is in the "games", which disgusts me as a human being but bravo with actually being able to increase the vulgarity after 6 prior installments.
The finale: Closure... finally some closure.
I have nothing horrible to say about Saw 3D as my expectations were not very high.
I can say I do not think a better series of Horror/Thriller films exists or probably ever will exist but I would have also said that if only the first four were made.
The Hurt Locker (2008)
The Hurt Locker... Not even close to Best Picture
Do not get me wrong. I do not think this film was bad by any means. However, I absolutely do not think it was great whatsoever. I do not think it merited the praise it received. I could not get into this movie. I did not find any character particularly riveting. Instead, I believe everything was oversimplified. There are three significant characters who can all be fully described in one word. William James(Jeremy Renner) is reckless, JT Sanborn(Anthony Mackie) is rational and Owen Eldridge(Brian Geraghty) is a whiner. Talk about simple and boring. It is a complete misconception to call the "protagonist" William James anything more than an action junkie placed in a dramatic film. He does not fit. Sure he disarms bombs and saves lives but you get the idea throughout the film he just does it for the thrill. His experiences are nothing more than him indulging in his cravings for adventure, which makes it very difficult to connect with him in dramatic scenes. The overall point of this story was to connect with this character and how he is consumed by "war". I feel like I did not have this connection and the actual story was not strong enough to support where the characters were lacking. I could see how war veterans could connect because they probably have had similar experiences to relate making this film an involved reminiscence. I do not see how your average moviegoer could call The Hurt Locker a "great" film/experience when it lacked great dialogue, a great story, complex and diverse characters, great acting. The Hurt Locker is an average film. There is nothing about it that makes it stand out above and beyond any other war film I have ever seen and it certainly did not deserve the Academy Award for Best Picture.
Inglourious Basterds (2009)
Ehhh... Nothing Special
This comment is a very generous 6 stars out of 10. This is not Quentin Tarantino's best. I realize when viewing a film you should willfully suspend your disbelief but that is not the problem here. I am more than willing to watch far fetched historically inaccurate movies. Inglourious Basterds was simply a horrible idea. This movie lacked any and all good qualities a movie should have.
Plot Development. There were some entertaining scenes that were preceded and followed by very long and quite boring scenes.
Dialogue. The subtitles are exhausting and take away from enjoying the essence of the acting, plot development, and cinematography throughout basically the entire 153 minutes.
Character Development. There were hardly any sufficiently developed characters. Brad Pitt had some comical dialogue but was hardly a likable character. Like all of the other characters(except Col. Hans Landa) his lacked any sort of complexity whatsoever. Christoph Waltz (Col Hans Landa) puts on a flawless performance and is probably the best and most well developed character. Waltz brings a delightful talent to the screen, which was unfortunately surrounded by sub-par and adolescent writing/direction.
I'm usually able to stomach distasteful gore in a movie if it can be supported by a worthwhile story but Inglorious Basterds was not one of these experiences. The film was not really even titled accurately. Certainly there were "inglourious basterds" but they didn't even contribute enough to have a whole movie titled after them.
In summary, this was 153 minutes of Tarantino's sick and twisted day dream. I am a big fan of his but this one just lacked the talent and creativity we all know he has. I think people who enjoyed this were probably just too excited to really watch and evaluate it carefully just because it was a Tarantino film. Plus it was exponentially better than Death Proof so I suppose he's made a small step up. ha.
A Perfect Getaway (2009)
A Perfect Getaway... A Solid Suspense
A Perfect Getaway was a top-notch suspense thriller. With little if any plot holes, the movie overall had a solid developing story. A charismatic Steve Zahn and Timothy Olyphant put on two very entertaining performances. Although out of Steve Zahn's typical range, he delivered in this performance. The movie begins slowly and carefully while at the same time building necessary suspense. There are several twists and turns throughout that keep you guessing until the opportune moment when it quickens pace and really grabs the viewer. When everything comes together it does so in a smooth and interesting fashion. The only criticism would be an "acceptable" yet somewhat uncreative final ten minutes. However, that weakness does not take very much away from the quality of the film. In summary, A Perfect Getaway is a fresh 97 minutes that is highly recommended. Enjoy!
Angels & Demons (2009)
Angels & Demons... No better than the DaVinci Code
As assumed Angels & Demons was a very mediocre film. Director Ron Howard and Actor Tom Hanks should be ashamed of their efforts when they made this movie because both are much more talented that what they did here for 138 minutes. The plot was about the only interesting part of this movie. However, the interesting story was ruined by Hanks' inability to encompass a believable character(Robert Langdon). Granted he did have some complex dialogue but nothing he said sounded like he actually knew what he was talking about. If the main character is supposed to be a well respected professor and the integrity of the movie depends on the authenticity of the character then Hanks' should have put in a little more time trying to comprehend his lines instead of just flatly reciting them throughout the entire movie. Once again, like the DaVinci Code there were several cheesy and "convenient" epiphanies that could have been executed in a more clever manner. Otherwise, the remainder of the supporting cast: Ewan McGregor, Stellan Skarsgård, Nikolaj Lie Kaas, and Armin Mueller-Stahl all performed very well. The lead female Ayelet Zurer was not bad but anyone could have played next to Hanks in this movie and looked just fine. The best part of Angels & Demons was probably the last riveting 30 minutes, which basically salvaged its grade from a 4/10 to a 6/10/.