Reviews

The similarities between Shooter and the Jason Bourne trilogy are appealing. Matt Damon and Mark Wahlberg play very similar characters with basically only the motivation for their vendetta as the difference between the two. And as much as I loved the Bourne movies, this one is just as good! With smart, intense action scenes right from start to finish, the movie had me fully enthralled for the entire 2 hours.

Mark Wahlberg is one of those rare actors who can carry a whole movie playing the infallible tough guy who knows what's right and will not fail to enforce it regardless of pain or the odds against him. That said, the supporting cast is great also. Danny Glover, Kate Mara, Michael Pena and Ned Beatty and Elias Koteas all deserve mention for their roles.

I had to laugh at the obligatory slo-mo of Wahlberg strutting away from the explosion. Not because it was funny but because he just does it so perfectly. Not sure what it takes to look that good in a slo-mo strut but I wish I had it. lol

All told this movie had everything I want from an action flick and more. Give it an 8+

But that's just my two scents. ;)

This was the movie Rowan Atkinson had to make for his North American fans and being one of those fans, I enjoyed it tremendously. It had all the physical comedy and farcical set-ups you expect when Mr. Bean plays James Bond but it also had more than enough story and character to hold it together and make it a real quality comedy. Aside from John Malkovich, there were no really big Hollywood names in the supporting cast, but they were all more than passable. Kudos go to Natalie Imbruglia as the "beautiful woman with a mysterious interest in the mission" and Ben Miller who weighed in as Bough, Johnny's sidekick and straight man. It can't be easy playing off a man like Rowan Atkinson, I would think.

While the movie holds much more than the silliness of the opening credits, it can be said that if you enjoy the credits and pre-opening credits segments, you will enjoy this movie. The character Rowan Atkinson creates in portraying Johnny English is hard to describe. He is somehow a proud, honest and well-intentioned man who makes the mistakes and errors in judgement that would be truly painful to watch if it wasn't so funny and yet it's all done in a setting where you can laugh about him without laughing at him. As one of the other reviews I read said, when Johnny is removed from the case, you see the true dejection of the character, not another stubbed toe or sight gag. And that attention to the character and his personability is what makes this movie worth the price of admission. Rowan Atkinson is truly a comic genius, in my opinion.

I'm sure many will rate this much lower and never go back to watch it again (comedies seem to have much more trouble appealing to a wide audience base than dramas), but for me, it was a 7.7 and definitely worth re-visiting.

But that's just my two scents. ;)

This movie combines the best of so many truly gifted artists. It's based on a Steven King short, directed by Rob Reiner and stars 4 perfectly cast and directed young actors. It runs the full gambit of emotion, in no way lessened by the youth of the characters of actors portraying them.

No matter what your youth was like, this movie has some of your past in it. Anger, confusion, coming of age, finding independence, camaraderie with peers, standing up to bullies (or not), misunderstood or abusive parents, and most dramatically, finding the friends who get you through whatever you may face.

And if you have the opportunity, you should definitely view the 'featurette': Walking the Tracks. The interviews with the actors, director and Steven King are as informative and entertaining as any special feature you'll ever watch. Among other things, hearing Rob Reiner talk about how he took 4 very young and completely inexperienced actors and made this movie is a true vision into the art of being the "Actor's Director".

This one should be on everyone's favorite list. A solid 8+.

But that's just my two scents. :)

This film completed the trilogy perfectly. It had all the things we loved about the first two and was done just as well. I can't understand why it gets rated higher than the first two by IMDb users, I rated it just slightly lower than Supremacy which I had rated just slightly lower than Identity.

As with the second instalment, my only complaint is the shaky camera. Aside from that small, minor annoyance, this movie rocked. The action sequences were fantastic, the chase scenes were riveting and the story- line and plot development grabbed you right from the start and never let go.

After LOTR, which was by the far the most laudable cinematic effort in the history of cinematic efforts, The Bourne trilogy has to be a lock for the next best with whatever comes third far in the distance.

But that's just my two scents. ;)

This is a pretty simple movie. Not a lot of character development, even though there were only 3 characters and each of their reasons for being there could have been quite interesting if developed properly. That being said, it was a fun little family movie you can watch with the kiddies and a bowl of popcorn if there are any families out there who still do that. If the story doesn't do it, at least you can talk about the awesome visual 3-D effects. If you don't go into the experience expecting to be enthralled, it'll keep you interested enough but by no means will you be adding it to your favorites or watching it again anytime soon (if ever).

Brendan Fraser is no longer in danger of getting typecast, it has happened. He seems to always have that same dumb, just a bit overwhelmed but gonna do it anyways even though he not sure what 'it' is look on his face. Even when he does get to kiss the girl, you get the feeling he wouldn't know what to do next if the director failed to yell "cut".

I'm glad I watched it and I'll give it a 6.2

But that's just my two scents. ;)

For a fluffy, middle-tier, buddy-cop action comedy. This movie is great. The comedy is truly funny, Richard Dreyfuss and Emilio Estevez work perfectly together and the story-line is just enough to keep you in your seat. Unfortunately, Rosie O'Donnell doesn't add much to it but you can't have a sequel without adding a character or it's just the same movie all over again.

Besides his stature, Richard Dreyfuss is a damn good portrayer of a cop in a comedy. His mannerisms, his comedic timing, all the aspects required for the role seem to come easy to him but he's just too small a man to be throwing punches at guys twice his size in height and in girth. Unfortunate really, although I'm pretty sure he'd rather be remembered for his dramatic works anyhow...

Basically, this is pretty much exactly what you would expect from a sequel to the original. A slightly less enjoyable effort with the same comedic buddy-cop pairing with the same adequate but not ground-breaking story-line. Lots of fun if you're not expecting anything you haven't seen before.

But that's just my two scents. ;)

I think it goes without saying that you have to watch 'Identity' before watching 'Supremacy' so I will write this assuming you've seen the first one already.

After the compete awesomeness of 'Identity', it was going to be very hard for a new director to step in and create the sequel but Paul Greengrass did a pretty good job of sticking to the concept and feel put forth by Doug Liman. I've never been a fan of movies in which the camera bounces around to create the feeling of greater action and heightened intensity, but despite the use of that tactic, 'Supremacy' worked for me in every way. Matt Damon came back to the role he was born to play and killed again (so to speak), his motivation was different but just as believable, and his choices and actions were just as entertaining and awe-inspiring as in 'Identity' and, also as in 'Identity', the story hooks you in right from the start and doesn't let go. You can't help but root for the good guy in his quest to learn about his past and secure peace in his future.

In a movie that takes what should be unbelievable and makes you believe it possible extremely well, my only complaint with the story is that no one, even Jason Bourne, would walk away from a head on collision with a cement wall at full speed in a little cardboard box of a car without a seat belt on with only a slight limp.

As for my rating, it comes in about a little less than half a point below 'Identity' (which I gave 8.6) but still a solid 8+. Final tally: 8.2

But that's just my two scents. ;)

This movie was everything it's case said it would be: 'an explosive, action-packed hit with incredible fight sequences', 'a super-charged thrill-a-minute spectacular loaded with non-stop action'. These are words you seem to find on just about every movie-case these days but in this case, you can believe them. It had me fully enthralled from start to finish. The tempo seemed to ebb and flow from full-out action to dramatic character interaction and development flawlessly. The car-chase and hand-to-hand fighting scenes might be the best ever put to film and Matt Damon, who has sounded like he's trying a little too hard in some of his other efforts, is 100% believable. Everything about this movie draws you in and forces you to want more.

I'm not sure why it's only a 7.7 in the eyes of the IMDb world but in my opinion, it's worth much more. Easily a 9. This is what action movies should aspire to.

But that's just my two scents. ;)

Oliver Stone did his homework on this one. He dug up everything he possibly could that can be construed as negative about pro football in the USA and then exaggerated it (where possible). The money, the egos, the nepotism, the media's affect, the personality conflicts, etc, etc. Suffice it to say, he did have a lot to work with. What kept this movie from being a classic was the extreme heavy-handedness of it. Maybe it was his goal to beat us over the head with his vision of the world of pro football but it was too much for me. Most aspects deserved to be exposed without 'sugar-coating' or tactful delivery but I just can't help feeling that some of the messages could have been better delivered with subtlety, trusting the viewers intelligence to see and understand the problem without the overbearing nature of the film.

The cast was excellent, Pacino was as good as I've ever seen him, Jamie Foxx, Dennis Quaid, Cameron Diaz, LL Cool J, Matthew Modine, and even James Woods were all very good and casting Lawrence Taylor and Jim Brown worked beautifully.

Like all Oliver Stone movies, it ran long but the last half hour or so might have been the best part of the movie (as it should be) so that isn't a negative aspect in this case.

Basically, if you know that this is an Oliver Stone dissection of pro football and you know anything about either of those topics, you know what kind of experience you're in for.

But that's just my two scents. ;)

I watched this film thinking it was going to be one of those standard crappy 80's movies. Only two recognizable names, Jeff Daniels, who had done mostly TV movies to that point in his career and John Goodman, in a supporting role. Jeff Daniels played the role perfectly, making us feel for this intelligent, capable, unappreciated yet maturely resilient doctor who's given up a life in the city only to have all plans for his new life ruined pretty much immediately on his arrival. Oh yeah, and he is also deathly afraid of spiders. Don't get me wrong, it still had all the aspects of a crappy 80's flick, but in this case it worked. Not once did I laugh when I wasn't supposed to, and the skillful interjections of comedy worked perfectly to balance the effect of the constant potential threat of a killer spider in any given scene. For his part in that comedy, John Goodman was his usual hilarious self playing the town's lone "extermination engineer".

This one gets a 7, which seems a bit low considering but I cannot bring myself to give it an 8. Maybe a 7.4

But that's just my two scents. ;)

Basically, the first thing you need to know is that the vast majority of people who were disappointed by this movie had read the book before seeing it. Of those who hadn't, most responded favourably. I am of the latter group. This movie is a fast-paced but not overwhelming 'follow the clues to beat the clock' type effort with just enough twists and turns to keep you involved right through. In trying to keep up with the book, they didn't really have time to develop the characters but other than Tom Hanks' Robert Langdon, who is successfully developed in The DaVinci Code, this is not a character driven story. While it requires thought to watch and keep up with the story-line, it is not a thought provoking movie. The DaVinci code challenged one's belief in the Catholic church and its teachings and this one had inklings in that direction (most notably the science vs. faith argument) but didn't lean nearly as hard on the viewer to engage the argument as part of the viewing experience.

Also of note, the special features included a segment on the creation of the set. Considering the size and historical significance of the locations and the inability to use the actual sites, making this movie was quite a feat.

Seriously, though, how can you possibly go wrong with a Tom Hanks and Ron Howard collaboration?

But that's just my two scents. ;)

Maybe it was just the copy I got but I had trouble understanding anything said, the sound was just terrible. Despite that, I plodded through it hoping something would happen to make it worth the time. Unfortunately, it just didn't grab my attention at all. The characters were uninteresting, their motivation confusing, and I found myself wondering how much time was left long before it was done.

The intended love connection was contrived and seriously under-developed. I've heard of love at first sight but when a married woman and the man intending to kill her husband are supposed to 'feel the burn', a little indication beyond eye contact is required to convince this viewer.

I probably shouldn't complain because I did only spend 38 cents but being free wouldn't be enough to help raise the rating on this one. I give it a 4 because it had some potential and I have seen worse but it's more of a 3.5 rounded up...

But that's just my 2 scents. ;)

This was a great sequel. All the action, clever chatter, stunts, explosions and buddy-cop movie standards that made the first one great are here again.

Martin Lawrence and Will Smith make a fantastic team playing off each other with comic perfection in a big budget, action-packed, fast-paced blockbuster. Gabrielle Union was a great addition to the ensemble, the story-line and the inter-play between Martin and Will also.

My only complaint is that we didn't get to see enough of Joe Pantoliano as the Captain.

A solid 8 in my books.

But that's just my 2 scents. ;)

Analyse This had a freshness and uniqueness of concept that carried right through the film and made it an enjoyable fluffy comedy. Analyse That falls very adeptly into the stereotype of the sequel that tries to emulate the original and fails miserably. The jokes are the same but somehow less funny, the new characters add nothing notable, Robert DeNiro seemed lost and unsure of his character, Billy Crystal was just plain annoying at times and the story was alternately ridiculous and pedantic. Are we really supposed to be curious about whether or not he's going straight? And in the end, did he?

6 is actually a bit generous, consider it a 5.5 rounded up.

But that's just my two scents. ;)

If you liked Tombstone, The Postman, Braveheart, or Robin Hood: PoT, you'll enjoy this one! What it shares is the lawless society where one (or a small band) of the targeted simple honest folks decides not to just lay down but to fight back against a seemingly undefeatable power-happy and -hungry foe. American Outlaws adds comedy and some great characters into the mix and comes up with a winner. Colin Farrell, Ali Larter and Scott Caan deliver solid performances.

I don't know anything about Jesse James and I get the feeling after watching this movie, I still don't, but I do know that I'll be putting this one in my favourites pile.

But that's just my two scents. ;)

This was not a feel-good movie by anyone's standards with the possible exception of the protagonist. It was set as the prequel to the uber-famous Silence of the Lambs and if you've seen that one, then you understand that whatever happened to Mr. Lecter in his youth was not Disney fodder. I have a pretty weak stomach for graphic gore but while it was quite clear what had been done to the victims in the movie, I had very few issues with the representation thereof as far as queasiness goes. Only the final murder scene transgressed into unwarranted levels of depiction. Despite not having any big names in the cast, the acting was quite good, I felt. Gaspard Ulliel was very believable in what must have been a difficult role as the older child-Hannibal although I must admit I was struck by the physical differences between he and Anthony Hopkins who plays the elder Hannibal in Silence and later Red Dragon. His aunt, played by Gong Li was also quite believable although the writers did not need to add the physical manifestation of their mutual attraction for us to see the effects of that relationship on the future cannibal's personality in my opinion. Some of the support cast, most notably the "bad guys" were a bit weak as they took turns being the next victim. I must admit it was kind of hard figuring out what to hope for as the movie went on. They made Hannibal's intended victims very deserving of societies disapproval but does that mean we want Hannibal to actively pursue his revenge? The story did not provide your classic good vs bad; it was more like monstrous versus diabolical.

All told it was about a 7.5 for me. Worth a rental but choose carefully with whom you watch it.

But that's just my two scents. ;)

I just watched this one again and enjoyed it much less than I remembered from when it came out originally. The concept was great, the cast was great, the effects were great but there were so many instances that really challenged my 'suspension of disbelief' that I found myself laughing when I was supposed to be excited or scared. The script-writing seemed to challenge these fine actors (most notably Glenn Close, Dean Stockwell, and even Harrison Ford himself at times) to the point I just couldn't believe them.

Ultimately, I have to give it a six but that's somewhat of a compromise as the good parts were easily worth an 8 but there were too many unbelievable moments to give it more than the 6 it gets.

But that's just my 2 scents. ;)