Reviews

4 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Jason Bourne (I) (2016)
6/10
A step back
25 March 2017
Warning: Spoilers
Generally I liked this movie. It has a great cast and while not quite as good a performance as the 1st 3, Damon did OK. I liked the effort to tie together the other movies and the slight twist of the father being involved.

But the camera work killed it for my wife and I. She got dizzy and I got an upset stomach. Tommy Lee Jones said it all in the interview. "The camera never stops moving". While this is the latest trend in film making, we hate it. I think this is cheap "in the face" action as you can not see anything clearly. I have to say it is clearly geared for the younger generation, which grew up on video games with the very fast scene switching constantly. I gave up games years ago because of the seasickness. Yes, I am a baby boomer. So since I am on the way out, I have to suffer the new trends as best I can.

The movie is rated 6.7 at time of my review which is way below the 10/10/10 of the trilogy and even the 8 of the Legacy. It falls down in not being quite true to the spirit of the originals with very tight clear cut action. Giggling cameras and tight shots may be easier to make a good take, cheaply, but make for very poor action. Back up and hold the camera still and show us how skillful the scene unfolds. Watch Jackie Chan. I actually thought they got a different director and camera operator to make the movie, it was so different.

The required car chase and multiple destruction is getting old but I guess it fits a little. One thing I could never understand in the trilogy is why Bourne never does much in the way of disguise. A baseball cap is the best we get. Simple paper wads in the mouth make the computer face recognition fail, as do glasses, lipstick, eyebrow pencil,etc. Very easy to acquire and apply and shows sophistication worthy of JB. It would have helped the movie at little cost.

The updating to more modern computer era was good but not too well done in my book. My suspension of belief was nearly lost on the "prediction of escape route" scene. I could have lived with it if the rest of the movie was better. And too bad Nicky is dead.

I gave the movie 6 out of 10, just barley above average, and I was very disappointed. I would have given it less but I like the trilogy+1, the cast, the relatively decent story and usually the director. The obvious last scene setting up for a new movie looked like a cheap ad. If they make it, I hope they go back to the old style. Lock down that stupid camera.
5 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Liked it at 1st, then hate the lack of ending
27 December 2016
Warning: Spoilers
I really liked it in the beginning, even it was slow at times but it just kept deteriorating. It got less and less understandable. It had many moments that seemed to lead to a profound ending but in fact were just filler. The worst part was there was no end and no resolution to many of the dangling situations and problems. It could easily have had a nice ending wrapping up everything.

This movie is pointless. I will watch the director and writer and avoid their work in the future. It is sad to waste such good actors (and behind the scenes work) go to complete waste. I don't see how this got a 7+ rating.
1 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Rush Hour (1998)
4/10
poor movie due to Tucker
17 February 2015
We love Jackie Chan. We have all his movies. But Chris Tucker is just too silly and ruins Jackie's movie. Jackie should have used Will Smith or Eddie Murphy.

The silliness detracts from the story. All 3 Rush Hour movies are the same for us, the worst of all Chan's movies, including Jackie's early Chinese work, which at least were consistent in the humor. Tuckers humor is High School clown and does not mesh with Jackie's. He should work with Jack Black or other silly comedians. You can not relate the movie theme to Tuckers off the wall immature humor.

I am not saying Chris Tucker is not a good comedian as he has good wit, insight and humor in his own right, It is just he does not fit well with Jackie's self effacing Serious and clean movies. He acts his part seriously and Tucker is just ad-libbing off the wall jokes like he is on a talk show and it just does not fit in the movie.

I give the rating 4 out of ten because of Jackie Chan and the other hard working actors doing the best they can while Chris cracks jokes that have nothing to do with the movie.
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Help! (1965)
3/10
Not that good
18 January 2015
Hard Days Night (HDN) was quite good, Help was awful. If I had watched the directors comment I would have been even more disappointed. He was right on in analysis but execution failed. It was not that funny, had stupid instead of rye humor, really dumb story line. I cant understand why HDN was so good and this so bad. It was bad in 1966 when I saw it and bad in 2015 when I watched it again. I knew it was bad but just watched HDN again and gave it a chance. Mistake.

It is the story line and dialog that was bad, not the cast (support actors were fair, Beatles were Beatles). Directing was OK given the poor script but I just don't understand why it was approved by Beatles and director, who normally have better taste.

It was silly rather than clever. I thought there was more plausible plot in HDN. And more cohesive and connected continuity too. Help was just a collection of silly scenes not much connected together except for returning to the the stupid plot-line occasionally.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed