Reviews

This is one of those movies you just need to enjoy the piss out of. I knew going into this, it's not The Godfather, Shawshank Redemption, or other Oscar winner; but I thoroughly enjoyed myself. Conor McGregor was a great psycho - though he needs some vocal training, make him more resonant. But it looked like he had fun in that role ;)

The music was good, the scenery was great, never been to The Keys, but after this I might actually go there. Anyway, more like this please ;)

Switch off your mind, maybe see the first Road House with Patrick Swayze first, then expect to be entertained: Go see it.

Felt like a waste of my time.

When I saw the trailer, I had high hopes for a decent vampire movie, done some quality Hollywood justice.

The movie even build up quite nicely... the visuals, the inferred opulence, the extravagant dinner, etc.

And then... it completely tanked!!

Instead of giving the viewer the what could have been an epic ending or at least an open door to a sequel, turned into something which looked as though the original writer took off without finishing the script; and someone said: "Let's just give it a fast ending. It'll be fine."

What started out as a seven at least, ended a three.

I gave it a four, because of mood it was able to convey up and until right before the climax.

Honestly, What's with all the bad reviews? This movie is like a comic brought to life; properly. No, it doesn't have a $250 Mil budget; nor is it an Oscar winner. But man, does it entertain. Lizzy Caplan is awesomely sexy, as a take-no-prisoners gun-slinging widow, enduring being victimized and targeted by a lunatic father in law, his murderous friend and his insane nephew, a whole bunch of very barbaric men and at least one bloodthirsty voodoo witch... all while trying to keep a promise to her deceased husband. Seriously, I was very pleasantly surprised how satisfying this movie was. Ignore the haters. Just go watch it.

Finally a movie about the Joker done right. And by that I mean, the Joker is done right; including his entire change into the unpredictable psychopath we know from the various comics, cartoons, movies, series, and spin-offs in the DC universe.

Joaquin Phoenix portrays actual real-life insanity. Something I have personally witnessed in my line of work; in at least three certified cases of truly criminally insane people. The kind of insanity which is completely unpredictable, other than the fact that whatever the person is going to do, is guaranteed to make absolutely zero sense to a sane person, but makes one hundred percent complete sense to them. Joaquin Phoenix played his role so well, that this movie actually scared me a little. Especially since I recognized actual symptoms and behaviorism's of known, real psychopaths.

I remember a quote from a movie, by Batman himself: "...the Joker is insane." And it was delivered by a very good voice actor, very convincingly. I bet that the person who wrote that line in the script probably had no idea, that this insanity would be so accurately portrayed in a live-action film.

Why the hate? Except for a few rushed bits here and there, which really should have had more of a build-up, this movie was not bad at all. I would even go so far as to say, it's a lighter version of New Jack City. Except there are no drugs, but loads of old-school gangster action. And it's done by three housewives... and done really well.

Just because Melissa McCartney & Tiffany Haddish are known for comedy, doesn't say anything about their acting chops in a gangster movie. They owned their roles. Elizabeth Moss rocked it, as the semi-psycho Claire. Decent and emotional story.

I found out it was based on a DC/Vertigo comic book series, and no, I haven't read any of them; yet. But just taking the movie as it is , I really enjoyed it.

This movie did what it was supposed to do. It entertained the hell out of me; and then some. An assassin's life story, is never a pleasant one; nevermind the badassness they are able to pull off, again and again and again... it always is a life filled with misery on various levels, and a whole lot of death. Perhaps this movie is a somewhat romanticized version of such a story, and it should be romanticized, it is a movie after all; but hey, it's entertainment value is relevant to the times.

Yeah, I thought it was great. And yes, I will go see it again. Go watch it already.

I enjoyed this movie. As it happens, I was at the box office getting tickets for Alita: Battle Angel, when this movie premiered. Something about the poster got me interested, and I must say, it's an enjoyable Dutch (spoken) comedy, with all very Dutch humor.

Having been to Cuba myself, I was pleasantly reminded of my time there, and the combination of cast, assorted weird situations which unfold, and a very nice soundtrack, nicely completed this ninety minute experience.

On a side note: this is considered "low budget". As the movie was made for one million Euros (or almost one and a half million US Dollars); yet the cool thing is, you never notice it. It's got comedy, drama, more comedy, love, comedy, action, and a helping of typical Dutch craziness... So, being the social butterfly that I am, I ended up seeing it twice. Should you go see it? Is it really funny? Did it move me emotionally? Yes!!!

I enjoyed this movie. And since Dave Bautista was one of the two producers, I was curious to see what he could do; and it was not bad at all for his second movie. (His first movie, where he was the executive director, was "Bushwick" (2017). There are some similarities to Die Hard, as some reviewers have mentioned, but this was way better executed, considering the level of action it has; and the quality of the stuntwork. Cool props to Mr. Baustista for doing them himself.

Summary: It's a to-the-point gritty action flick, with some decent poetic moments thrown in. This is a movie I can watch more than once.

The Predator had a lot of potential. It seems the studio decided to reshoot a large number of scenes, and very unfortunately, it shows with a vengeance. The movie is one big mess. This mess the studio calls a movie, lacks coherence, as if an eight-grader got his chance to produce & edit what could have been a Hollywood Blockbuster....

So much for the salute to "Predator (1985)". Amazing, the sheer level of stupidity of whomever it was that decided to do this. Must be nice to be able to waste millions of dollars and not be held accountable... Could have been really good, had all the requirements; yet someone, somewhere decided to turn it into a Frankenstein of a film... much like "The Meg (2018)". All in all, waste of my time and ticket money.

It's Entertainment. A comic book story made into a movie, with all the comic trimmings. I guess the other reviewers really didn't like Priest's over-the-top hairdo... and they're kind of right: it is excessive. But then again, he's supposed to be a combination of dangerous, sharp, slick, & smooth, all at once; so I'll give him that. Besides, the movie is entertaining. That, and I wasn't expecting a blockbuster; but it's nicely done. Wastes no time. What happened to people just watching movies and expecting to be entertained? That's what I expect from a movie: "Will it entertain me, and how much will it entertain me?" All the other niggles about script, technical qualities, and what not, are just that: niggles. If you're down with going on a fantasy gangsta trip for 116 minutes... see expensive cars, gals, guns, gratuitous T & A; cool martial arts, and a hail of bullets, with a sprinkling of love to round it all out... Go see this movie.

The movie had all the resources to be as good or even better than the original. While I applaud the film makers for their efforts, the pacing was way too rushed up to the scene where Cher makes her appearance. The audience was simply not given enough time to let the emotion of the previous scene sink in; the scenes followed each other at a pace that completely undid whatever emotions the previous scene with it's singing and sometimes dancing created. Whoever it was that decided to rush the pace between the scenes ... crippled it. Other than that obvious problem, it was all a very good effort.

The Time Tunnel

Summary: Good concept with lots of potential. Under-developed script. Horrible acting, painful to watch at times. Too serialized. Predictable episodes

More Detailed: Seemed to have been designed to teach people not to try to mess with history. Shows very little realism, mostly over acted and mostly completely fabrication of how some fantasy writer envisioned military security and scientific methods to be. The acting is very much 50's: stiff, over-done, and comical. And of course, they wear the same clothing, which miraculously, no matter how dirty they get, are completely clean in the following episode. Not to mention their hair...

The characters, supposedly the two head scientists of the project, act like little oblivious children, who seem not the slightest worried about all their interfering in past events, during most episodes; where they are usually emotionally affected by, and repeatedly attempt to change history. Instead of focusing on preserving it by not interfering and working out a way to get back to their own time, in good health. With the rest of the scientific team, back at project central, monitoring their experiences and trying to keep them alive by having them time jump out of danger to unknown periods, always continuing in the episode following the current one. The series was suddenly ended by ABC, so there was never a "return home" episode aired.

While this movie had so much potential... Much of it fell in the water, thanks to the fairly predictable, "me-too" guarantees of using cliché, generic plots, generic henchmen, a bad-ass looking but even more generic villain, way too much CGI - even in places where it should have been done more practically and CGI added for highlights or effect (like make-up on a face). Where did that 300 million dollar budget go? And what silly person came up with the idea to replace all of Hans Zimmer's music with the old theme songs? Lost most of the epic feel of the movie right there...

Now, if certain actor's acting skills are not up to snuff... then it's up to the director to make sure the camera work, edits, and lighting, carry and cover that. That wasn't done well at all. Gal Gadot's acting needs work, and Jason Momoa the same; even if the lines they gave him were plain silly, a good actor finds a way to make it sound interesting.

Have the people in Hollywood learned nothing of Logan (2017), with Hugh Jackman? More realism in comics is what sells. Correct screen adaptations are what sells. The people buying comic books, paraphernalia, collector's's items, etc, have money to spend - they are not children. And stop trying so hard to inject jokes or silly behavior into almost every other scene or line... the characters come across as immature and sometimes a bit retarded.

Anyway, the story was weak. In itself that is not a problem, but the way it was portrayed... was well, weak. It's not possible to drown it in colorful CGI with fast cuts, and hope the audience doesn't catch on. Warner Brothers should penalize the person who insisted that the whole story needed to fit inside two hours - the pacing was too fast, detracting from the whole what-was-supposed-to-be-epic feel; which was already deeply in trouble thanks to the weak soundtrack.

It is very clear that DC needs to stop worrying about Marvel; whatever Marvel is doing, is not DC's concern. DC needs to focus on doing their own thing.

I found this movie very entertaining. The Hit-man's Bodyguard, is an action comedy that does not take itself very seriously; but brings the laughs and satisfaction all the way. When you go watch a movie, with the expectation to be entertained, and have a good time; you will. Turning off my usually critical mind, and simply allowing myself enjoy the action comedy and rolling with it, was a very nice experience. This movie's got a mix of everything: wow-factor, bad-assness, laughs, depth to the hit-man's backstory, his impressively capable and sexy wife, lots of bullets, intrigue, dry humor, big budget, crazy-credits, and the list goes on. Ignore any negative reviews, and go see with the intent and expectation to forget all the crap in the world for two hours, thoroughly enjoy it, have fun, and be entertained.

Where do I start? Like so many reviewers said: It was a blast! Keep your eyes focused at the upper two thirds of the screen, and it will be more or less like the FPS experience of a computer game. Awesome sh*t! Sharlto Copley shows how bad-ass of an actor he can be. Impressive.

Love to see a part two, they left the ending pretty open there. And with a bigger budget and people like Robert Rodriguez and or Quentin Tarantino on board... who knows how good the sequel can be?

The story was pretty good, the soundtrack rocked; the pace was like a bat out of hell... It's a First Person Shooter turned into a movie - from the perspective of the game character. So, disregard all sense of logic, preconceived notions, squareness, and watch Henry: All Out Balls To The Wall - Hardcore!!!

Go see the thing already.

Well... what can I say? We are not reviewing an Oscar winning script here, but a life-action comic book. A c-o-m-i-c b-o-o-k. It's rare when put to film that they get a great script. So, with that out of the way, on to the review: -- It was an action spectacle; awesome comic book action, with some small irritating changes - no doubt the writers were either unfamiliar with the character or the person who demanded he acted that way was. This refers to Superman's jerk-behavior and general childish behavior in the first 65% of the movie. Way off from "Man of Steel". There he was more of a think-things-through type of guy; even though he obviously is a whole lot less mentally mature on screen than in the comic books. Anyway... The movie was not bad at all, if a little rushed at the end... it felt as though it should have been half an hour longer, and they cut stuff out to compress it into 2 hours and 31 minutes; hope they release a director's cut on BluRay.

The movie introduces the audience to Aquaman, Cyborg, The Flash, and Wonder Woman; hinting at the upcoming Justice League. And googling DC's production schedule, they are all slated to star in their own movie, starting with Suicide Squad August 5th, 2016, followed by Wonder Woman on June 23rd 2017; Justice League Part One on November 17th 2017; The Flash on March 16th, 2018; Aquaman July 27th 2018; Shazam April 5th 2019; Justice League Part Two June 14th 2019; Cyborg April 3rd 2020, and Green Lantern Corps on June 19th 2020.

Batman is his brooding self, Lex Luthor is insane, for the first part of the movie, Superman acted like he just crawled out of an egg. Wonder Woman was nicely done, if a bit skinny and less believable body-wise (the actress is or was a model...). Which makes one wonder, with all the fitness models hanging around LA... why not one who can act? In the comic book Wonder Woman actually looks like an Amazon, not some mannequin-who-looks-fragile; even though she never loses her femininity in those same comics. If they insist on using "models" why not have them beef up some, like they did with Chris Hemsworth in Thor (2011)? That was impressive. Even if he lost most of that muscle by the time he reprised his role in The Avengers; where he looked like a reformed drug addict... There is no way around it; if Hollywood wants to make convincing comic book movies, like Man of Steel for instance, then the actors need to step up to the plate and look the part as well. Gal Gadot has a pretty face, nice hair; so where is the rest of the Wonder Woman look? You cannot simply project strength with your face alone. It is a movie, not a video chat: you require body and body movements. Simple things, such as the way they stand, make all the difference. Batman and Superman were the most convincing, and the characters that were introduced, such as Aquaman and Cyborg, actually looked the part.

Anyway, other than those points, I enjoyed the movie. Go see it.

This movie could have been so much better. The ideas were there, the entertainment value was there, the visuals, the cast... but yet somehow the script looked like it had been written by someone who had no idea of how to finish on the same high note as the ideas on which the movie was based. And a number of moments in the movie, where simply waiting a few seconds longer, before delivering a line or switching to the next scene would have made all the difference between epic moments or stupidly rushed parts with resulting lost effect. And this last bit, they did a number of times during the movie. It was pitiful to see such potential go to waste. Alas...

So, should you see the movie? Yes. Even though they missed and or simply messed up various opportunities for greatness, such as cobras as scary as and about the size of Godzilla dying way too easily; the movie has entertainment value. Just make sure you disengage your critical mind long enough, it'll work. And pray, that the high school teen who was lucky enough to have gotten his first draft made into a movie, has learned how to clean up his work, and that the weirdness between the directing and various badly timed delivery of lines which ruined what could've been epic moments, is figured out and solved by the time this crew puts out another project...

This movie is not a cheap flick by any means. For some reason, people (myself included) seem to have been expecting a less than interesting B movie... well, it wasn't. Kind of like a short but satisfying Marvel comic. I really enjoyed watching this. Sure, it's produced with a small budget, but it does not come across that way at all. It was well put together, the story was coherent; and the acting was decent, as well as the character development. So that by the end of the movie, I was thinking to myself: "Wat? They're ending this on a cliffhanger... damn, now I want to see what happens next."

So yes, this movie is well worth the watch. Enjoy it ;)

The first one had some cool dance routines. But then there was the excruciatingly boring and dud "girlfriend"... I mean, when you looked her... in a strip movie - that's supposed to be filled with attractive, beautiful, lively girls & women. I went like wha...????!

At least part two entertaining - to the end. And I mean from start to finish. So glad that absolutely boring girl has been scrapped; she really did the first one a disservice. She radiated ...boredom. Lifelessness.

Anyway, In this one, we have Amber Heard. Yes, she's skinny as hell; but at least she is nice to look at. She radiates something interesting. Much better choice.

The movie? Heh, it's not an Oscar winner, but it sure was fun to watch. Really, I've been a stripper myself; and got nice flashbacks - all throughout, especially the shows they were doing at the stripper convention. Obviously, all the guys had a great time and every girl I spoke to thought the movie ended a bit quick. But none of them had anything bad to say about it. The theater was filled with mostly girls & women anyway. I counted a couple of gay guys and the odd guy with his girlfriend/wife; even they enjoyed it.

Don't be a macho dick. Go see the movie. Have some fun.

Why so much bad press over an American movie filled with British humor? The negative reviews apparently all come from people in the united states... weirdos.

I saw this movie last night; and liked it. For some reason, the children that seem to make up the American audience these days, seem to think that it's a stupid movie. Why? A few days ago, I saw Kingsman: The Secret Service, the film adaptation of a comic mini-series, and thought it was excellent. Look at the rating for Kingsman; it's way higher than this film. Yet, it seems only because Mortdecai is mostly VERY British humor; different than what yanks are used to.

I'm glad I saw Mortdecai; I left the cinema feeling pleasant and entertained. Give it an honest try, it's not junk.

For any of you who wonder if this movie is worth watching:

Yes. It's very entertaining.

There are: Funny moments, action, betrayal, heartache, self-doubt, greed, peace of mind, etc. And also a realistic portrayal of the story behind the immortal legend of Hercules.

It seems people go watch movies with preconceived notions and expectations, stuff they think "it will probably be about". Don't do that. Don't set yourself up to be let down - let down by your own preconceived notions and expectations of what something will be, when you have none to really go on other than the poster...

As far as movies (and the news) go, Hollywood has the final say in how anything they put out is going to be. That is just how it is. "Have-no-expectations-other-than-expecting-to-be-entertained" way of looking at ANY Hollywood production, and go from there. (Is it entertaining, how is the camera work, how is the editing, how is the music, am I enjoying myself, how do I feel after the movie?

And see for yourself how much more you'll actually be enjoying the act of going TO the movies. Movie critics get PAID to watch movies. We are PAYING to watch them --- and I damn well expect to be entertained.

I gave this movie an 8 because it was refreshing. I give it a 6 for them mixing up so much and giving wrong info. It was an entertaining movie, I just wish they didn't just outright change character histories without even making it sound legitimate - especially for those who are familiar with the characters and know their back stories. Marvel mixed and matched characters from various alternate time lines within the marvel universe in this movie.

For example, Yondu, in this movie is such a character. Here is his data http://marvel.wikia.com/Yondu_Udonta_(Earth-199999)

The Yondu from the comic books is here: http://marvel.wikia.com/Yondu_Udonta_(Earth-691)

Those of you who don't know that there was quite some wrong information in the movie - the writers disregarding marvel history in their lame attempt to make it more sensational, check these links

Gamora - Not the silly girl she was portrayed to be in the movie. http://marvel.wikia.com/Gamora_(Earth-616).

Here is Thanos his file, http://marvel.wikia.com/Thanos_(Earth-616)

Nebula http://marvel.wikia.com/Nebula_%28Earth-616%29

The Nova Corps http://marvel.wikia.com/Nova_Corps_(Earth-616)

Few characters who go from biggest baddest bad guy to good guy roles, need sensationalism. You might want to read the Infinity Sagas, to find out how much of a bad-ass Thanos really is.

All Main Marvel comics take place on Earth-616. Our reality, is known as Earth-1218 You see, Marvel has many different alternate realities where their stories develop and characters originate. I suppose the mixing-up was done to cut some corners and to make it seem more interesting for the box-office.

All in all, it was fun. But frustrating to see how weak and sometimes lame the characters were made out to be by the writers. I mean, Gamora, the most dangerous assassin, was taken down so easily so many times...

Go watch it. Suspend everything you know of marvel, your ego, and enjoy.

Henry Cavill plays a very believable and out of place Clark Kent. Of course, who in reality, is an alien named Kal-El; one of the last surviving Kryptonians, and found and raised by an earthling couple from infancy. If you haven't seen the Superman movies with Christopher Reeve, or at least the very first "Superman: The Motion Picture", that's okay. This movie contains his entire origin, as well as a pretty decent write up of the events leading up to Kal-El being sent off to Earth, and the eventual destruction of his home world of Krypton.

Where it gets really interesting, is in how the producer went about showing Superman's abilities. In this reboot, Superman doesn't fly off with the usual smooth "wooosh"... here his take-offs are generally in the neighborhood of Mach 1 or faster; and they rock! There are even a couple well north of Mach 6... It's a superhero movie. Skyscrapers get smashed, entire city blocks are blown to bits, serious kick-ass at the speed of sound, and yes, Superman & the bad guys, they're all bulletproof. Oh yeah, there's a bad guy hottie, playing Zod's right hand... and she kick's serious butt.

The only complaint someone came up with, which was misplaced, was that Michael Shannon's character, general Zod, was more like a sidekick... But that person was comparing Zod to Kahn from Star Trek: Into Darkness - a completely different persona - Kahn being a genetically engineered genius/super soldier; whereas Zod is a genetically engineered soldier - period. Of course he doesn't have Kahn's brilliance, as a soldier who's only task is the protection of Krypton and to guarantee the continued existence of it's people, he was not designed to be brilliant in everything; Kahn on the other hand, was; which is also the very same thing that made him such a nemesis. Not that Zod is not very good at what he does, mind you; on the contrary, he gives Superman quite a run for his money; make that every cent. He doesn't care about the body count, as long as he accomplishes his self-proclaimed mission while annihilating billions in the process, to save the Kryptonian legacy.

The movie is worth it; go see it.