Reviews

Dumbest movie I've seen in a long time. Childishly flat attempt to imitate American action films. Every country has its own values, but Indonesia's is certainly not making an adult action film. Make one about wajang dolls or something, but don't reach for what's beyond your power.

Predictable scenes and vulgar violence are apparently what this film is all about. Not for me, and probably not for anyone who has outgrown their teenage years.

After the first fifteen minutes I gave up. I'm not going to waste my time on this. Then I can watch the children's theater at the primary school even better. Causes a lot less annoyance and vicarious shame.

I almost always get disappointed in oriental films. They are childish and meaningless, displaying a hopelessly superficial sentimentality. While they clearly try to imitate the American examples, they fail in a pathetic way. I think the high rating of these products is mainly due to political correctness or bad taste. So do yourself a favor and use your time more wisely.

1 out of 10.

The difference between old and new films is the content of actual emotional values. Movies from the 1930s to the 1950s often have a depth that brings out the best in people. The problem with current productions is the masking of the lack of such veracity through the pursuit of effect. Bad times at the El Royale also tries very hard to look like an impressively good film, among other things by - what's new? - a frequent use of shock effects and a forced plot. But it is not convincing, despite the excellent acting that in advance we can expect from the protagonists. What is shown are plastic emotions, mutatis mutandis to be found in most creative expressions of art today, be it film, TV, theatre, drama, literature, pop music or visual arts. And everyone copies the other in it, because good example is good to follow. Cause? We are too well-fed, too consumptive, too spoiled and therefore too blasé. We draw our depth from platitudes spawned by these factories of second-rate emotions, rather than let life itself mold our feelings. In the past - the period I mentioned above - people were not yet so pre-modeled by the media. Give me a Gone with the wind (1939), a How green was my valley (1941), Blossoms in the dust (1941), Cassablanca (1942); the movies with Bette Davis, Jean Arthur, Gregory Peck, Ingrid Bergman, Deborah Kerr, Alastair Sim, Joan Crawford, Kenneth More, Greta Garbo, Marlene Dietrich, John and Lionel Barrymore, Greer Garson, Walter Pidgeon, Maureen O'Hara, James Stewart, Spencer Tracy and so on. That does not alter the fact that I also have many more modern films extremely high in my ratings list, but that appreciation is then based on the inherent tension, humor or otherwise. For the inartificial depth I move to the time of many decades ago.

As so often with sequels, there is the effect of taking credit for what other wizards have done. The first Terminator movies were great, they ushered in a whole new genre. And then inevitably lurks the imitation, and the desire to take advantage of other people's gain, to continue to exploit a formula for success. So the admirer of the original gets deeply disappointed in his expectations and desire to repeat the euphoria. Likewise with Terminator Salvation. To be sure, there is a skillful work being done, both in the acting and special effects. But that's the only essence of the film, and as such it falls short. We've had enough spectacle by now in one movie after another, and it's become more or less a distraction from the lack of content. If the viewer cannot get enough of the eternal repetition of thunderous violence, each time convincingly brought to life by computer technology, then that is of course his own choice. Personally, I gave up well before halfway through the film, because I'm already exhausted from watching the same tricks. Four stars out of ten.

It seems that nowadays every film director is in competition to deliver the greatest conundrum. At the end of the film, you as a viewer are left in a labyrinth from which you have to find your own way out. And you paid for that too!

Where have the unambiguous films gone, with a straight line from beginning to end? If I want an enigma, I'll solve a sudoku. It is now very strongly suggested that you are too stupid if you simply want a clear story. Secret language has become all the rage in Hollywood, and as usual they're all mimicking each other's trend.

Okay, I saw the explanation for this movie on a site and I can now understand what is meant. But isn't it crazy that such a feature film has to be fully explained to you first? In short: I don't want to spend my time on this. And that doesn't automatically mean that I can't surpass Sly Stallone's level. I like to do puzzles sometimes, but not always and not extensively. So filmmakers, do your job and entertain our viewers in an uncomplicated way, without uncritically trying to follow in your competitors' footsteps.

That does not alter the fact that the acting of the actors themselves deserves all praise. My low rating (5 stars out of 10) applies to the total product, and not necessarily every part of it.

Maybe that is the reason for the bad ratings, because people miss the brainless nervous action that's so fashionable; or is it the nowadays mode of dismay for Mr. Travolta that all the sheep uncritically follow? Otherwise you're too much out of the box, guys? Be this as it may, Travolta is a hell of an actor and he is doing fine as usual in this picture. I really like the stylish, calm pace of acting he displays here and he certainly deserves much more, yes even the opposite of all the bad critics he's given by the bunch of nitwits in this world. The movie steadily develops into the direction of the inevitable conclusion, and Mr. Travolta is just the right P.I. to bring it on. Agreeable too to see him connect with his own daughter in the film, I recognise the bond I have with my own daughter. I very much enjoyed the movie, and the peaceful music after the credits reminded me of the sphere in Bill Brufords "Feels good to me' (1977). I surely recommend this play for a pleasant, well-balanced evening.

If you thought Seagal makes less than mediocre movies, see what can top his. This movie brings in all the stereotypes you can imagine. And combines it with a script, acting and characters that are so horizontal flat you couldn't have guessed it would've been possible in modern movie making. Peppermint adds up all the clichés that are used in common action movies, and completes this heavy labour of cut and paste with a predictability that would've been laughable if it wasn't so utterly culpable, and if you weren't so insulted by such grotesque underestimation of the audience's judgment. This flick is bad, more than bad from the very start to the dreadful end. How can anyone make such a piece of crap in these days, when we're used to the level of, for instance, the John Wick movies? I can only say to the viewer: time is precious, don't let it be stolen away by atrocities like Peppermint.

There are plenty reviewers here that complain about the quality of this movie. I don't know what they're talking about. They're spoiled brats, way too much pampered with high quality products and demanding ever more. What have they themselves to give, except for unsaturated desire? I tell you people, this is top notch movie making. Bourne has matured, and comes to a conclusion point. There's something to think about, and you can feel the tragic of the life he has to live. Nonetheless, there's still enough point of your seat action, and intrigue, and the astonishing depth of digital world control. So the plot is intelligent and exciting. A worthy continuation of the Bourne cycle, and with high class acting. I enjoyed it very much - as much as its predecessors.

Incredibly tedious, boring, meaningless, would be arty. Even if the movie was fully explained to me, I wouldn't care. I wonder why I sat this one out, constantly waiting for a story to begin. It was a wasting of time I can't get back. Why would anyone bother to make such a film, and anyhow - why should I see it? Were the movie makers so delighted with their own importance that they insisted to force their nihilistic view on the world? I pity them, and all who wish to go along. I don't like this impression brought upon me with the strong suggestion of "o how profound we are". On the contrary, I would say: you're confused, and you misguidedly hold your confusion for a deep truth behind the reality. But if there is such a truth - and I sincerely believe there is - it's not the one displayed in this monstrosity.

To me, this was a disappointing movie. I anyhow wasn't that much inclined to see it, because of the popularity amongst the youngsters: that's invariably a bad token. So maybe I should rephrase my opening sentence. The movie was what I expected, but I'm always disappointed my bad expectations are so vastly responded to. This product is so obviously invented - with the help of some adequate stealing from the predecessors in the genre. To name a few examples: Jack Sparrows bearing clearly is a loan from Sandokan, the head figure of a popular pirate series in the 70's; the stern character of the commodore, rigid and uncompromising as in numerous examples before (the loosening at the end is a bland falsification); the Yankee Doodle type of the father of the heroine; and so on. The movie distinctly was made for commercial purposes, and has no historical traits whatsoever. The Zombie effect of pirates doomed to perpetual half-life is one of the many dispirited genuflections to modern taste and merely augments the mendacious value of the motion picture. I can give more instances of such unhistorical nonsense, but cannot do so without giving away the plot; so I'll avoid that error. All in all, if you like pure fantasy without any pretension of truth – go see it, when you have nothing better to do. But don't you think things in any respect could've happened this way; life isn't a fairy-tale.

This film was a turning point for Seagal, and all the flat character fans didn't understand it. Steven isn't only a fighting machine, he also has the heart on the right place. His concern for the environment let him make a move that placed stress upon that topic. I admire the man for that. We see a story in which all things fall on the right place, with scenes, turns and music apt to create a summit in filmmaking achievement. It is your subconscious dream of doing things right. Seagal's the man here, in every way. He's handsome, strong, just, modest, devote, charming and responsible. He kicks ass when there's need for it, but is also very gentle with children and women. He plays the guitar and sings, dances and composes, and beats some thugs in the meantime. Where do you find such fellows nowadays? He should be an example to y'all. But since you didn't get it, Seagal was disappointed and got the picture himself. "I'll have to make a living," he must've thought, "and when people only appreciate sheer action without a thought, I'll give them that." So he left the line of honest messages and went for the money. I can imagine, really, but it's a shame all the same. If people had estimated Seagals move here, it would've produced more movies of such a strong nature. But the world is ignorant, and prefers flat characters. Steven got the message, and gave the people what they wanted.

This is filmmaking like it should be: profound, mature, masculine to that extent that I hardly can believe it has been directed by a woman. I only can praise the bewildering qualities of mrs Bigelow. It was an utter pleasure to see this movie: so professional and exciting that it takes your breath away. You really get impressed by the work of the FBI, the intelligence officers and the special troops. Mrs Bigelow has elaborately shown the step by step process of hunting down Bin Laden and it constantly keeps you on the edge of your seat. It also showed me once again the treachery of those Muslim terrorists, to whom nothing is holy: no honor, no humanity, no loyalty, no positivism. They are the Nazi's of our days and vigorously have to be dealt with. Why this movie, despite all of this, gets sharp criticism by some weirdos is a puzzle to me, but I gather these are the kind of people that only can grow by kicking down and spitting on others who really do have potential (a behavior the Nazi's were also good at, by the way). I'm looking forward to see more work from this qualified movie director!

This is a tale of hope and perseverance, with moving and still humorous parts from time to time. It shows the straightforward, human character of ordinary people and succeeds in arousing sympathy for them, despite their regular coarse behavior and talk. Nevertheless, I have some objections. I liked the story and make my compliments to the excellent playing skills of all the main actors and actresses, let me make my point clear here. But I'm strongly annoyed by the obligatory swearing and other decadent expressions that apparently must be inalienable to most Dutch movies, from the late sixties on. Seems like filmmakers always need to proof themselves this way, as if they've got stuck in their puberty. It's such a stultifying effect, especially on our youths that take this for example. And the perpetual downgrading of everything religious from our own soil is all equally imposed; are the Dutch so frustrated and childishly unable to discover the positive side of the church? Why this inevitable mockery and cheap scoring on things holy to others? Mind you, I myself are not religious (that is, not in the common way) and I even unsubscribed from the church I was born into. But I deeply respect all those who make more of their lives by believing in a higher goal, and I strongly disapprove the caricaturing of such people. Moreover, I get bored with it because it's such a trodden path by now in our movies and tele- productions. Come on, can't you do better than that?

It is significant that this movie gets such high ratings. It gives me little hope for humanity, as it signals to me the general 'rate' of people nowadays. How can you indulge so much unworthiness, inhumanity and degradation? Why is it that insisting on elevation and not depravation only meets with loathing and mockery today? For instance, is there no one who gets troubled by the increasing usage in movies of babies amidst violent situations involving screaming and other utterances? These kids have no conscience of the theatrical setting; they themselves aren't actors and will take the violence for real. Why is the monitoring of animals and not of small children normative? No doubt Running Scared is a skillfully made product and it gives your nerves the expected blow. But I get so tired and sick of all the negativeness, aggression, swearing and other subhuman behavior in our modern films. Do you still think this won't have any effect on our growing youths? Don't you see we're judging ourselves this way, bringing affliction to humanity by constantly consuming filth and gloom? I'd like to make an appeal to the movie industry for taking its responsibility in educating people, instead of merely making money out of life's darknesses. Methinks we weren't born to drag each other into the pools of obscurity, but to inspire one another in reaching for the stars.

I watched this movie together with my wife, and we both found it laughable just because of the severely exaggerated character. The dark rising basses and sensitive piano play (one single tone per five seconds) when something occurs that is thought to be dramatic, it's all so forcibly meant to impress that it's one big gesture of bad taste. The wise and deep sayings that must incite you to take this very serious, as also with Ewan (the father) suddenly and grippingly bursting into tears... o how profound! Give me a break, will you. The real event itself was serious, not this monstrous production that clearly was meant as a tearjerker smoothly exploiting grave incidents. Why on earth was it rated that high? Are Americans so melodramatic, or is it political correctness that makes people believe that you ought to value and esteem any film about such a dramatic topic? Could you earnestly compare this to such quality movies like Collateral, the Godfather part 3, Munich, Dracula (Bela Lugosi, 1931), Love actually, Rabbit-proof fence, A room with a view, Never let me go, Steel magnolias, and many other films that were rated somewhat about the same level or even lower, but that are of a whole different (e.g. far better) quality?

I hate these kind of films. You're obliged to be utterly impressed by them, and I bet even the actors themselves go with the common flow of appreciating them only because it's so right to be impressed by them. I get so weary with that everlasting overemphasizing of sex and all that has to do with it. Don't you see, it's mere poverty man, and we're nicely following the paths of nature. What's so special about that? Must I have heavy opinions about a man who is sexually obsessed (yawn) and get's confronted with all that's contrary to that, with life, with the bias development of events occurring to everyone? Get a life, dude! This is soooo boring... I have no commitment whatsoever with a person that behaves like an underdog, feels like an underdog, and actually IS an underdog. Where is an uplifting point; where is greatness; where valor?

How they got the nerves to connect the real and profound drama of 9/11 to this dragon, is a total guess. Maybe because today people don't have that much reservations anymore. Anyhow, it's tasteless. And do Americans so much like annoying kids, that would be better off with their asses kicked? I absolutely loath that conniving, politically correct attitude of parents towards their children in American movies. They're spoiling them into arrogant wiseacres this way, like with this kid. Or with the one in Spielberg's Empire of the son, or that kid in About a boy (with Hugh Grant), and so on. Those children are terribly irritating, having been set way beyond their age. Children should be children, not little adults; the whole rest of their life they can be like that, not that it's so much a desirable status. But the whole picture of a kid reprimanding and raging against grown-ups, even towards an 80-upper, is utterly detestable. Furthermore, this film was artificial, with poor suggestions of some mystery, and boringly slow, without any gripping story to hold on. I cannot understand why Hanks and Bullock chose to play a part in this one. As able actors, they should have known better; such movies cling to your reputation. I can only hope they won't have to pay the piper too much for it.

All those Italian made movies like Novecento, Malena and this one have such a wrought up vision of sexual behavior in former days! It's one big projection; like everybody anytime was so degenerated as we are nowadays. I really find this a very annoying falsification, and people massively swallow it like truth. Don't you get that this is pumping the hundredth lie in your simple-minded heads? This whole masquerade is only intent to suggest that there has always been the violence and lust we're used to, and thus lull us asleep: you needn't worry, all this isn't abnormal because people always were like that. Well, they were not. It's absolutely untrue and you're fooled when you believe that nonsense. The degeneration on this scale springs mainly from the seventies and has developed to a mode of complicity among film directors. Do not believe it; our parents and (great-)grandparents still had the decency the majority of us lack today. Church membership was common, and people wouldn't think of all that filth we display and welter in at present. We don't even recognize anymore how divergent it is and think it's the standard way of living. Anyway, I utterly dislike that kind of movies and have skipped the rest of this one just when I'd seen a quarter of it. It's a waste of my time, and I by far prefer to see really uplifting productions instead.

Tom Cruise is about my age - well, that is to say: he's four years and five days younger. So I'm 53 now (although I still feel like 25) but look far younger. But when I look in the mirror I definitely see a man who fairly has passed his 40th year, grey and all. Why then is it that Tom still seems, say, 35? I wonder and find it unbelievable. And his play is always very skillful. Even when you may not like him as an actor (some people have their preferences) you must admit that he's convincing and has strong acting skills. A movie with Cruise always is enjoyable. And so with this one. There's action, fun, romance, humor, speed, and turning points. And Cameron Diaz is his worthy opponent; she's very suited for the role and plays it wholeheartedly. Go see this one, and you come to like Cruise and Diaz even better.

Since long I haven't seen such a worthless movie! I wondered where they found so many bad actors/actresses. The play was so obviously imitating the better movies and acting, it was shameful, and hopelessly boring, tedious, time wasting! I stopped this film halfway, couldn't stand it any longer. Why does it appear to be so often the case with disaster movies? I've seen a few, but it seems to be difficult to make a good one. Arctic blast excels in achieving the opposite. Those people they gathered, so totally uninteresting and mediocre! And that awful Australian accent! All in all, don't go and see this dragon. You've seen more of those absolutely annoying productions, haven't you? This surely is one of them, and out of the lower regions. Avoid!

This movie is a climax of nihilism. In its construction it's incomprehensible, chaotic and sloppy; the tone is negative, the acting uninspired; and yet it is, paradoxically, unbelievably overrated. If this is what people esteem nowadays, then I pity for them - what is their perspective of life?

How distant this production is from the original version of Batman I have seen, in the sixties; or, for that matter, the comics themselves! An overkill of sound and images must cover up the lack of story. And how 'skillfully' the sphere of the Batman original has been murdered. No courage, no honor, no romance left. Do people really believe in this vision of darkness? Or is it a perverted sense of heroism, in respect to the deceased Joker Heath Ledger? Increases the death of youth icons the validation of their productions? Should that be so, then how poor and unstable a basis that is!

Seldom my time was wasted like this. For its technical efforts, I reward 3 out of 10; reluctant, however, in giving any appraisal whatsoever.

I honestly don't understand what people see in this horrible movie. It's such a feast of bad taste, plain awful! It has whole the lack of taste that characterizes the seventies, and is so unbelievable cheesy that words cannot say. The acting is really miserable, the characters are empty, the effects totally unconvincing, in one word: it makes you puke. Stay away from this monstrosity and, for all that, from the people that apparently appreciate it. They are to be pitied. It sticks out that almost never ever a seventies movie can captivate or even amuse me. In my opinion the seventies demonstrate a total decline of taste whatsoever. Maybe there are exceptions for the music (though the introduction of commercial motives has severely damaged it), but in most other parts of the creative process (art, fashion, movies, opinion) the seventies are a disaster. It's typical for the nihilistic mood nowadays that a revival of that decade is seen; people evidently lack depth of feeling. Anyway, this film is a disgrace for the movie business. I don't value it higher than a 3, and it should kiss my feet for that.

I saw this flick on TV last evening. They always show oldies like this, and seldom to my delight. Too bad, that also accounts for 48 hours - a quarter century old, give me a break! I really don't get what people see in this film. Never found it funny, anywhere - only very tiring. Nolte couldn't amuse me, he merely grumbled a lot but never hilariously. Murphy sure did much better in his Beverly Hills Cop series. Similar was the rudeness, regrettably. I honestly felt uneasy seeing the movie together with my 15 year old daughter. Besides that, the film is too old to appeal to the modern viewer. We've had it with this foregone formula, it can't please us anymore. Give us the real thing!

Bas Rutten from Eindhoven, Holland, didn't get the point at all. Yes, this film was unsophisticated and full of stereotypes - it was méant to be! If you can't see that, then you're like the people in the film that were ridiculed themselves. I really laughed my tears out at this one, and hey, I don't lack subtleties. The story is so over the top in demonstrating the total unadaptedness of this family, it's a real achievement. Although it's clear that it imitates Brutti, sporchi e cattivi, all the same it's got a uniqueness of its own. The films (there are three of them) and the series have been, and still are, very popular in Holland; they wouldn't be if they were bad. The actors all did a splendid job and so the director himself, who also wrote the story and the music, did. I wish the commentaries here would more often be given by people who are entitled to speak about the level of movies, and not by blunt arrogants that try to make an impression in lowering other people's achievements.

The cover of this film claims it to be 'In the spirit of Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon'. How dare they make such a comparison?!? The film looks no more like Crouching Tiger or, for that matter, Hero (with Jet Li) than my granny looks like Pamela Anderson. 'A man called hero' is one of those cheap and cheesy Chinese martial art films that were produced by the ton, all with unconvincing action effects. Moreover, it's stuffed with flaws. The story is of a cheap emotional level, with a weak storyboard, dumb would-be comic attempts and bad acting. In short, it's your average China movie. It's trash and bad imitation, a waste of your time and money. Skip all the surplus reviews; you'll be deceived. Trust me: there's accounting of tastes. This earns no more than a 3 on a scale of 10.