Thanks: 14
Results 2,686 to 2,700 of 2819
-
06-03-2017, 08:01 PM #2686j7wild Guest
Crossplot (1969)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0064193/
An modeling agency talent scout (Roger Moore) unwittingly gets involved with a girl on the lam from a group of dangerous killers after she overhears an assassination plot.
Made 4 years before Moore stars in his first James Bond film, Crossplot plays out like an over-long The Saint Episode mixed with a movie featuring a James Bond wannabe character.
3/5
-
06-04-2017, 08:31 PM #2687j7wild Guest
Free Fire (2016)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4158096/
Boston, 1978. In an abandoned factory, several IRA members meet a group of Americans to buy machine guns that they plan to ship back to Ireland to use against the British.
Easy Peasy!! What could go wrong, right?
There is a disagreement and misunderstanding over something, everyone is carrying a gun, everyone is on macho adrenaline rush.
Someone pulls a gun first and shoots another.
Then the whole thing turns into a big shootout with everyone shooting at everyone else.
Oh, there is a woman too. She came in with the buyers.
So what's wrong with this movie?
Everything!!
It's a waste of talent: Cillian Murphy, Armie Hammer, Brie Larson, Noah Taylor, Michael Smiley, etc.
The producers could had saved some money and gotten a bunch of nameless actors because all that talent couldn't save this movie from it's paper thin plot, cardboard characters, and moronic dialogue.
There was a few instances where I wanted to shoot all the characters myself just to see the movie end:
at only 1 hour and 30 minutes running time, it was still 40 minutes too long. That is how tedious it was to watch this.
2/5
-
06-12-2017, 02:26 PM #2688j7wild Guest
Wonder Woman (2017)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0451279/
Now this is how a movie adaptation of a Superhero[ine] comic book series should be!
Not that repetitive junk we have been subjected to the past 10+ years: Dark Knight Trilogy, Captain America, Avengers, Iron Man, Non Fantastic Four, X-Men, etc etc
Gal Gadot is beautiful, intelligent, charismatic and she has a strong on screen presence and persona.
She TRULY IS Wonder Woman!!
I can't think of any other actresses working right now that could had been a better choice than Gal Gadot.
I wish her a long and prosperous movie career as both Wonder Woman and any other roles she chooses to take in the future and I hope she will never become a victim of typecasting.
5/5
-
06-15-2017, 06:21 PM #2689j7wild Guest
Prime Risk (1985)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0087942/
This movie just looks dumb now - the girl uses an ATARI 400 or 800 something to hack an ATM.
I am sure that was high tech in 1985 but not now.
The girl, actress Toni Hudson, is cute!
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0399981/
Back during the early to mid 80's when I was in my teens to my early 20's, I watched just about every movie and kept up with every cute actress but I've never heard of Toni.
3/5
-
06-15-2017, 10:43 PM #2690j7wild Guest
The Eiger Sanction (1975)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0072926/
In this long forgotten thriller about a government assassin called back out of retirement to do one final job, Clint Eastwood directs, stars and performs his own white-knuckle mountain climbing scenes and stunts including really hanging over a 4,000 feet precipice (no SFX, no CGI, no Blue and Green screens), cutting his main rope and dropping a 1,000 feet before being held by a second rope.
Featuring a great cast including George Kennedy, Jack Cassidy, Thayer David, Gregory Walcott, and Vonetta McGee and a rousing thrilling score by legendary composer John Williams, this is one chiller that you shouldn't miss!
4.5/5
-
06-20-2017, 09:43 PM #2691j7wild Guest
K-19: The Widowmaker (2002)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0267626/
Depiction of the events of the K-19 Soviet Submarine near nuclear reactor meltdown disaster of July 1961, directed by Academy Award winning director Kathryn Bigelow of The Hurt Locker and Zero Dark Thirty.
The entire crew was sworn to secrecy for 28 years after the accident and the subsequent new crews that served on it afterward from 1961 until 1990 were never told of the prior near nuclear disaster that happened on the submarine.
The K-19 was hurried through construction and commission at the time to keep up with the American technological advances in nuclear Submarines warfare.
Over 10 construction workers died during its construction and the K-19 was considered cursed right from the beginning when during its christening, the champagne bottle thrown against its hull by a Man instead of a Woman, failed to break.
It was also sent on its first operational mission with minimum sea trials, no back up cooling system to the on board Nuclear reactor, no suitable radiation suits and no anti radiation drugs for the crew.
Them Russians sure like to cut corners and do everything the hard way, don't they - as long as it's Duty and Party and the Motherland!
I see that Duty and Motherland and Party sure helped them win the Cold War, NOT!
4/5
-
06-26-2017, 01:51 AM #2692j7wild Guest
King Arthur: Legend Of The Sword (2017)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1972591/
$175 million to make plus $100 million in total marketing costs and a total domestic and worldwide box office of $137 million giving it a projected loss of about $150 million.
This was supposed to be the first of 6 King Arthur films by Guy Ritchie and Thank the maker that won't happen now.
This film was a mess. No!! Let me rephrase that!!
This film was a Hot Mess!
Urban Dictionary defines Hot Mess as:
A state of disarray so chaotic that it's dizzying to look at. A mess that is beyond the normal range of disarray. A Hot Mess distinguishes itself from an above-average train wreck. Train Wreck is defined as: a total ducking disaster ...the kind that makes you want to shake your head.
the main reason this movie sucks is because it has no identity.
It wants to be a medieval movie, it wants to be a sword and sorcery movie, it wants to be a fantasy movie, it wants to be a Matrix movie, it wants to be a Lord of the Rings movie, it wants to be every movie ever made in the past 17 years since Gladiator and it just doesn't achieve one nor the other.
In other words it doesn't know what it wants to be and that's what makes it such a big Sucking Hot Mess of a movie!!
1/5
-
07-02-2017, 10:52 PM #2693j7wild Guest
Alien: Covenant (2017)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2316204/
Alien: Covenant is set 10 years after the events of Prometheus - which in itself is about 30 some odd years before the events of Alien 1979.
Here is my take on this latest Alien movie:
1. It doesn't answer some of the questions left unanswered in Prometheus.
2. It doesn't bring much new to the Alien Franchise or give it much of a push in a new direction, even if this film is considered part of the Alien Prequel Series and not part of the Alien Film Series that started in 1979 with Alien.
3. Ridley Scott said there will be 2 more entries in this Alien Prequel Series before it comes full circle to connect with Alien 1979.
4. Some of the scenes in Alien: Covenant felt rehashed from the other 4 Alien films and from Prometheus.
5. The ending of Alien: Covenant left it open.
Will the next Alien film continue from where Covenant ended or it will jump many years again? Guess we won't know until 2019.
4/5
p.s.
A Final Thought:
The USCSS Prometheus in Prometheus, The USCSS Covenant in Alien: Covenant, the USCSS Nostromo in Alien 1979, they are all owned by Weyland-Yutani Corporation.
Same corporation seen in the events before Prometheus in Alien Vs. Predator and Alien Vs. Predator: Requiem.
Now as I've said above, there are 30 odd years between the events of Prometheus and Alien 1979 with 2 more films to come showing more events during those 30 years.
Now you'd think by Alien 1979, people will know not to work for Weyland-Yutani.
If you work for Weyland-Yutani, you are signing your own death execution.
-
07-07-2017, 09:49 PM #2694j7wild Guest
The Beguiled (1971)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0066819/
From IMDB Trivia:
Director Don Siegel said that the film was commercially a failure because Universal Studios released it with advertisements that suggested it was an action movie. And the result disappointed the die-hard fans of Clint Eastwood's usual films. Siegel also said that this film should have been shown in local theaters in NYC, and then could have probably been a moderate success instead of a total failure at the box office.
I will have to assume this film's commercial box office failure caused it to be overlooked and passed on at the Academy Awards of 1972.
The stars in this film deserved to be nominated.
Eastwood is wounded Union soldier, John McBurney, who is saved by an all girls school headmistress and her students.
Everyone is creepy in here: Eastwood character is trying to charm everyone at the all girls school, including the youngest one who was 13.
WTF?
There are even 2 scenes where he tells the 13 year old girl that she is old enough to be kissed and he kisses her on her mouth.
WTF AGAIN????
All the girls are competing with each other to get McBurney's attention and affection, including the 13 year old one.
TRIPLE WTF???????
Then there is the plot twist and the subsequent ending which I won't give away:
4/5
p.s.
I doubt the new version by Sofia Coppola will be this risque considering the attitude of the world today regarding sex and anything out of the ordinary is not PC.
-
07-11-2017, 04:00 AM #2695j7wild Guest
The Mummy (2017)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2345759/
*
A Mummy movie this is not!
The Brendan Fraser's Mummy films were Mummy movies.
This could had been just another Mission Impossible movie with Ethan Hunt playing a weekend Tomb Raider searching for long lost artifacts and fighting ancient curses.
Furthermore, both actresses were wasted. Once again as always in any film starring Tom Cruise, the focus is on him.
They left the ending open for a sequel.....
.....Please Don't!
Once is painful enough!!
2/5
-
-
07-14-2017, 04:01 AM #2697j7wild Guest
2:22 (2017)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1131724
In this movie about a man who re-lives the same events over and over, over a period of weeks;
Teresa Palmer, as she always is, is very hot.
The rest of the movie and it's thinly veiled murky story line and weak twists.... well.... not so hot.
Technically not even lukewarm.
2/5
-
07-18-2017, 01:53 AM #2698j7wild Guest
All Quiet on the Western Front (1979) The 157 minutes Uncut Edition
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078753/
An excellent ITC Entertainment produced TV movie adaptation of the classic 1928 anti-war World War I novel by Erich Maria Remarque.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Qu..._Western_Front
Strong acting all around by a cast of familiar talent including Richard Thomas, Ernest Borgnine, Donald Pleasence and Ian Holm in a film featuring a big budget, excellent production values, and sprawling realistic battle scenes.
You wouldn't think this was a TV movie while you were watching it.
This was billed as a remake of the 1930 Best Picture and Best Director Academy Awards winning theatrical movie adaptation by director Lewis Milestone.
Calling it a remake is an injustice.
It's a standalone film by its own rights.
5/5
-
07-21-2017, 02:27 PM #2699j7wild Guest
This was my immediate reaction the first time I saw the very first teaser trailer and people chewed me out for it saying "you got all that from one little trailer?"
Dunkirk (2017)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5013056/
Yup! My take of the movie based on that one trailer 8 months ago was right on the money.
This film is not so epic and sweeping as the trailers and the critics and online articles about it want you to think.
It's also not historically authentic.
Go GOOGLE and BING image search photos of Dunkirk and you will see the beaches full of men, chaos everywhere, war materiel and equipment and vehicles scattered all over it and most of it burning. All kind of boats and ships in the water trying to pick up 1000s and 1000s of men from the water.
Historical records show over 861 boats of all sizes showed up to pick up and help the evacuate over 330,000 men.
In the movie at the height of the evacuation, I counted maybe 2 dozen.
Nolan's version had men neatly in single and double file, plenty of clean empty sandy beach in between each row of men, boxes of ammunition neatly stacked up here and there, a few military trucks parked here and there - and this is even toward the end of the movie when they said they evacuated almost 400,000 men.
Throughout the entire movie, there wasn't anywhere near 10,000 men on the beach much less 400,000 men.
Furthermore these were men that have been fighting the Germans for almost 7 months starting back in Belgium and then pushed back into French until they were cornered with the sea against their back at Dunkirk.
Yet the troops all had nice clean brand new looking uniforms.
Also by the end of the movie the beach was still nice and neat and clean and devoit of any military equipment that was left behind by the British Expeditionary Force and the French Army.
According to WIKI:
The loss of materiel on the beaches was huge. The British Army left enough equipment behind to equip about eight to ten divisions. Discarded in France were, among huge supplies of ammunition, 880 field guns, 310 guns of large calibre, some 500 anti-aircraft guns, about 850 anti-tank guns, 11,000 machine guns, nearly 700 tanks, 20,000 motorcycles, and 45,000 motor cars and lorries.
You really got to wonder where the $150 million budget went?
The air scenes with the Spitfires fighting the German Luftwaffe were filmed with real air worthy World War II airplanes so there was no CGI there.
Also the movie suffers from the same issues Interstellar had: you couldn't understand most of the dialogue.
I saw it in IMAX 70mm and most of the dialogue audio was too low or some of it because of the British accent, just came across as garbled mumbling.
But when the action started, the special effects sound of gunshots and boats and ships engines combined with the music track just drowned out all the dialogue tracks.
Sorry Nolan, I have been waiting to give you a chance to redeem yourself ever since your movie failures after the success of Inception but you haven't done so.
Here's my review of Interstellar from November 2014:
This movie is a fine example of why I think Nolan is an over-rated unoriginal plagiarizing hack!
His Dark Knight films were a sacrilegious executionable offense to all fine film makers.
If Stanley Kubrick wasn't rolling in his grave after Gravity, he has to be rolling in his grave now.
0.5/5
1/5
Screenshots from the 1958 movie Dunkirk, made on a budget of a bit over $1,000,000, which adjusted for inflation is still only $8.6 millions.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0051565/
Compare those screenshots to the ones of Nolan's Dunkirk we've all seen online by now and no, they didn't have any of the extras in the 1958 version holding cardboard cutouts to make it look like there are more people on the beach than they actually were.
They also didn't use cardboard cutouts of military vehicles and inflatable military vehicles like Nolan did.
Which makes me ask again where did the $150,000,000 budget go?
Also notice how the sand have dunes and craters from explosions caused by the bombing from the Luftwaffe.
In Nolan's version, the beach was just one big long flat sand with no dunes and no craters in the sand even from the aerial shots.
Even the French 1964 movie Weekend at Dunkirk.
and the 5 minutes Dunkirk scene in Atonement, a movie that was not about Dunkirk,
look better and more historically accurate and detailed than Nolan's bloated $150 million dollar crap.
Last edited by j7wild; 07-23-2017 at 07:24 AM.
-
@j7wild
You quoted your post in the M-L thread, and since this place is a graveyard there was absolutely not a single comment made.
If "People chewed you out", sure as hell wasn't here. LOL
I can't see through walls, but I can kick your ass.
Similar Threads
-
Recent Software Releases
By corfy in forum General Chatter - Non-Movie RelatedReplies: 7Last Post: 09-11-2007, 11:13 AM -
Fantastic Four Trailer Recent one
By venomscurse in forum Trailer MusicReplies: 1Last Post: 06-01-2007, 12:58 AM -
what was the most recent OST you have bought?
By st39.6 in forum General Chatter - Movie RelatedReplies: 0Last Post: 11-12-2005, 01:59 PM
Bookmarks