Change Your Image
Bully_FU
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Lists
An error has ocurred. Please try againReviews
Kingsman: The Golden Circle (2017)
What More Did People Want? It's a Fun Sequel
This film didn't set out to reinvent the spy film genre and was a solid continuation of the story told in the first film. I've seen others say this had nothing to do with the first film and i don't understand that complaint, at all. There were lots of callbacks and references made to the first film and this also included almost all of the surviving cast. It had a similar storyline of the Kingsman saving the world from a deadly virus of sorts, rushing to release the antidote in time and that was fine.
The plot was good, the acting was solid, and the action sequences were a lot of fun. I'm not sure why people disliked this so much. This isn't any different than sequels to Bond or Mission Impossible in that its not trying to be somethings it's not, which is a fun spy film with lots of gadgets, over the top fights, and lots of action. The dialogue is a bit quippy and some of it is cheesy but no more than the first film. This was not trying to be more than the first was and I appreciated that. The first film was one of the most fun spy films to come along in a long time with how it didn't take itself too seriously and this did the same.
I really have no complaints with this. I guess I would have liked some characters to last longer than they did but I understand why they didn't, not just within the plot itself when they were taken out but it would have been too bloated towards the end if they weren't taken off the board. They did bring back a character who died in the first and that showed some of the deceased characters may return if there are more stories to tell in the world they've built.
If you want to be entertained like the first film and watch some quality action, give this a shot. If you don't like it then I have a hard time believing you really enjoyed the first very much. It doesn't reinvent the wheel but it didn't need to. I'd give it 7.5 out of 10 if that were an option but I rounded up to 8 instead because I felt this has taken a beating for no reason.
Saving My Tomorrow (2014)
If tomorrow is theirs I don't want to be a part of it.
This show was awful and full of agenda. I honestly don't know how they chose certain lines, clips, and "facts" to make the final cut. Surely there was better footage to use. I won't debate the science behind things like global warming, that's an argument and discussion to have elsewhere, but whoever forced these kids to say some of the stuff they did should be punished. I'm curious how much was forced on these kids by the director or producers and how much by their parents. A behind the scenes of this might have been worse than seeing the parents on Toddlers & Tiara's. I'm disappointed that HBO would air and produce a series so mind-numbingly stupid. The kids say ridiculous things like "Do-Do birds went extinct because of hunting. We did that! We made them extinct! We need to be careful so we don't go extinct too.". Then another kid spouts out "Global warming is a natural disaster. Natural disasters are things like floods and earthquakes.". In between ridiculous quotes being said by kids who are annoying they cut to even worse music videos featuring kids rapping or singing. Some of the things said are so out there and nonsensical that it's just frustrating and you want to do your part to ensure there is no tomorrow. Not only did they use more than their fare share of ridiculous quotes from kids but they chose certain kids who wearing masks or ridiculous animal hats. I'm fine with kids goofing off but if you want to use them to sell your point of view, which was clearly the case in the docu-series, at least choose likable kids who can speak in complete sentences. Most of the children were too old for them to considered "cute" and not knowing any better, I'd guess around 9 or 10. Sure kids that age shouldn't know the ins and outs of the environment and the struggle to preserve it but they should know the planet needs to be saved for more reasons than "Soon Long Beach will all be under water and that's a fun beach. That will happen before the rest of the United States or world has problems too and that's not fair." I wish I was making up some of these quotes but sadly I just finished watching an episode and can't get them out of my head, and I'm referencing them on my DVR for this review. Skip, definitely skip, like I said you'll want to do your part to keep these kids from having a world to grow up in if that's how intelligent they are and view things. I wanted to go spray a few aerosol cans in the air or burn some plastics but decided this review is better for the world at large.
Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance) (2014)
A lot of wasted potential...
I had semi-high hopes for Birdman when I initially saw the trailers. I didn't expect it to be a full blown comedy, drama, or action movie. I thought it might fall into the same sort of genre as "The Wrestler", a character driven film that has some elements of humor, maybe small action sequences, but primarily focus on the main character's current life. I also anticipated it having a dark sort of tone overall, like a dark comedy of sorts maybe like "Super". By the time I finally got to see it almost all of the award nominations it received were announced combined with the new ad campaign touting those nominations with all the critical praise. I tried to ignore most of that so I didn't let my expectations get too high, with all the recognition and praise it could only disappoint. It ended up succeeding at disappointing me so either I failed to ignore the praise or it was made for critics.
Although it doesn't ruin any plot points, the film was edited and shot as if it was one long continuous take. I found this out maybe 2-3 days before I saw the film and thought that was odd because I didn't see how that would fit the story or benefit it in any way. Hearing that made me real hesitant because if used poorly I thought it would damage the film as a whole instead of enhancing it. After finishing the film I realized I was right to be hesitant about that style. It hurt the film much more than I even thought possible. It made it seem cheap, corny, and gimmicky like it was pandering to critics instead of adding depth or perspective extra to the story. I typically enjoy long shots/takes in movies or TV shows. The major benefit to long tracking shots is they capture everything in real time and if used effectively it helps immerse you into the story as more of a passenger than just a bystander or spectator. I've seen it used effectively in almost every genre, be it dramas, comedies, or action. I believe I've only seen 2 films that used it the entire way through but I've seen it used many times for a 10-20 minute scene. In Birdman it was used all the way to the end and it wasn't used to convey real time or to highlight or enhance anything specifically. It was a little confusing because they used that style but also condensed at least 3-4 days into about 2 hours. I assume the purpose of that style being used was to convey the "theater" feel, in which everything is done live in one take without edits or retakes but if that was the intent then it could have been achieved differently. Perhaps using a few long takes instead of dragging it out the entire film. The transitions in scenes while the camera followed someone through hallways or staircases were completely unnecessary. They didn't contain one thing of substance in which made them necessary or important in telling the story, so they achieved only in continuing the "1 continuous take" gimmick. It ended up feeling forced as well as confusing and distracting which hurt the film as a whole by making it appear rushed and cheap.
The story was about what I anticipated with no real surprises, which wasn't a bad thing. It was decent and had potential to be really good, I thought. If it was edited like a normal movie it would have been better. I doubt they'd release a different cut of the film on Blu-Ray or DVD considering all the critical praise it received as it is, in addition to award nominations. The only way I'd be interested in seeing it again though would be if they released a version with clear editing to make it appear more like your average film. It could be edited into a few long takes, having each scene stand alone without the pointless transitions. Outside of that sort of cut though I have no desire to watch it again. I gave it 4 out of 10 stars on here because like I said the story had potential and delivered on some of that of potential although it could have been executed better. I give what I consider "average" movies 5 out 10 stars, I'd say this is slightly below average or just OK. What earned those 4 starts primarily were the performances by the cast. Everyone in the cast was excellent and they deserve the recognition and praise from fans and critics alike. Edward Norton, Naomi Watts, Andrea Riseborough, and Amy Ryan were all excellent in their roles. I don't typically care for either Zach Galifianakis or Emma Stone however they both executed their parts surprisingly well and showed me they are better performers than their typical big Hollywood roles would indicate. Michael Keaton was fantastic and delivered his best performance in decades. I don't think any other actor could have carried that role as well as he did. His performance was the main reason I wanted to see the movie in the first place and in that aspect he didn't disappoint. Hopefully this will opens doors for him to receive better roles moving forward because he hasn't had a chance to really carry a movie in decades, although he definitely has the talent to.
If this is a movie you've been looking forward to and have been anxious to see I'd suggest lowering your expectations before watching it and maybe you'll enjoy it more than I did. If you only want to see this because all of the critical praise and award nominations then I believe you're wasting your time and should just pass as it will most likely disappoint you. If you want to see great actors give great performances and see how poor editing can ruin the final product then I can't think of a better movie to watch.
All Superheroes Must Die (2011)
Only watch if you are punishing yourself or someone else for something awful.
The plot, characters, and acting are terrible. I have seen plenty of bad movies and I can enjoy most for one reason or another but I can't find anything redeemable about this film, at all. It barely even deserves to be a called a film. The camera work is shoddy at best so you are stuck watching a mix of "shaky cam" poor angles. I think the bad angles and shaky cam were purposely used so you would question whether or not a particular character was portrayed by an actor you're familiar with. I don't think there are any special effects in this movie which isn't a bad thing for a regular movie but for superhero movie they are a necessity. I don't just mean CGI either, I mean makeup effects, squibs, anything. What does that tell you though, a comic book/superhero movie with zero practical or computer effects? The answer to that should be avoid at all costs. If all that wasn't bad enough the script is terrible. I'd be surprised to learn that a script was actually present on set at any given time and this wasn't just made up as they went along. It lacks a sensible ending as well. The ending just sets up a scene and more nonsensical story, the town is supposed to blow up and then roll credits. They couldn't afford to blow a miniature or make a bad CGI shot so they just rolled credits instead.
I would write a review in more detail but it is painful to try and dig up the memories of watching this filth. Also this movie was so awful and low budget I would not be surprised to find out that they would take blurbs from an IMDb review to put on it's DVD box.