270 replies to this topic

[x007AceOfSpades]

End Of Watch - 5/5

 

This is a movie that I wanted to see, but was too busy and ended up missing it. A good friend of mine had hailed it has 2012's Best Picture and kept raving about it, so I just decided to just buy it. I'm glad I did. Another film by David Ayer that hasn't disappointed me. This movie was just so phenomenal. I haven't shed tears at the end of a movie since 2011's 'Warrior'. 'End Of Watch' really does capture the Concrete Jungle that is South Central, Los Angeles. It shows the real hard work and the duty of the LAPD and the never-ending war on crime as well as the emotions and such. Several critics have hailed the film as 'The best cop film in years'. This film is the best cop film period.

 

It's a shame that this fantastic film was greatly overlooked by major awards (Oscars, Golden Globes etc). Ayer's directing and writing is easily his best since 'Training Day' and 'Harsh Times' respectively. Michael Pena's performance is great and I believe he should have been nominated for Best Supporting Actor. I'll even go further to say that this should have been nominated for Best Picture. 'End Of Watch' is easily one of 2012's most underrated films.

 

This is my favorite film of 2012, I wasn't expecting it to be this good and surpass 'Zero Dark Thirty' on my Top Ten 2012 List. If you haven't seen this film, but wanted to, or just interested, curious or whatever, Do yourself a favor and see it.

 

Can't wait for Ayer's next film with Arnold Schwarzenegger, Sam Worthington, Josh Holloway, and Terrence Howard - 'Ten' in 2014

 

Top Ten 2012 List: UPDATED
1.) End Of Watch

2.) Zero Dark Thirty

3.) Looper

4.) Skyfall

5.) Jack Reacher

6.) Seven Psychopaths

7.) Dredd

8.) The Grey

9.) Savages

10.)

[seawolfnyy]

Finally watched Ted last night and I'll give it **1/2. It was funny, but not enough for a whole film. Clearly, Seth MacFarlane's prime is behind him. It's like Family Guy which hasn't been all that funny in years. I also couldn't help but root against Ted the entire film. All I saw him as is a far more annoying version Peter Griffin. Not really looking forward to the sequel.

[seawolfnyy]

I'll give Looper ****. It was an interesting film and one that makes sense, a rarity for science fiction. JGL was great and Bruce Willis was good, not as great though. Emily Blunt did a fantastic job, but I've got to admit I like her more as a brunette. It does have a great ending, even if it was a little predictable.

[tdalton]

Updated...

• THE DARK KNIGHT RISES ****1/2
• THE BOURNE LEGACY ****
• LOOPER ****
• THE INNKEEPERS ****
• BATMAN: THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS PART 1 ****
• TAKEN 2 ***1/2
• TED ***1/2
• HAYWIRE ***
• BUTTER ***
• PROMETHEUS ***
• AMERICAN REUNION ***
• THE CAMPAIGN ***
• TOTAL RECALL **1/2
• LOCKOUT **1/2
• SKYFALL **1/2
• THE CABIN IN THE WOODS *
• PIRANHA 3DD (0 STARS)

[x007AceOfSpades]

Updated...

• TAKEN 2 ***1/2

 

What are your views on the sequel? Is it good? Better than the first? Curious before I possibly rent it.

[tdalton]

I liked it.  I'm not sure if I liked it more than the first, as I haven't see that one in a while to be able to judge it fairly.  I could see where people wouldn't like it, though.  It's definitely one of those turn-your-brain-off action films, but given that the first film was based on the impossible premise that one man could derail the entire European slave trade in the span of a weekend, that was kind of a given going in.  The editing of the action scenes is somewhat from the QUANTUM OF SOLACE mold, with a lot of quick cuts, although I wonder if that's to make the idea of a 60 year old man easily dispatching people half his age a bit more believable. 

[S K Y F A L L]

FLIGHT 2012 

 

It was alright, wont watch it again though and after seeing the trailer you already kind of have an idea how the film is going to play out. Are trailers becoming more spoilerish? The soundtrack had a song by one of my favorite bands 'The Barenaked Ladies' right at the start of the film which kind of tells you what this film is about and it got my hopes up but it just seemed to use songs that you heard before in other films numerous times. I liked Don Cheadle in this, its what I imagine his character is like in his new show, not that I've seen it. 

[x007AceOfSpades]

Argo - 4/5

I must say, Ben Affleck is a great director and storyteller, he still needs to work on his acting though. I thought the film was going to be edge of your seat intense, but I found it merely watchable and enjoyable from a history point of view. It was good, but it wasn't great like many people were making this out to be.

The acting from everyone is great, except for Ben Affleck, whom I thought was just unfit for the role of Tony Mendez. I also didn't care much for Bryan Cranston and thought his acting was mediocre at best. Alan Arkin did a really fantastic job though. The Music is again something we haven't already heard from Alexandre Desplat. His score for the film was weak and forgettable. I prefer his work on 'Zero Dark Thirty' over this, and I believe he should've received a nomination for that film than this one.

 

I was expecting more from this, although Affleck is surely evolving as a director, this is a good film for his Directing credentials, but I still prefer his work on The Town over this. It's nice to see how it all went down regarding the Iranian hostage crisis and the history and the mission, but I think the running time could have been trimmed by at least 10-20 minutes.

 

Now This is the final film for my Top Ten 2012 list and it claimed the final Spot on the list at #10. 2012 - The year I saw lots of bad and disappointing films, lots of unexpected hits, and the return of a screen legend (James Bond ).

[seawolfnyy]

A fine review, Ace. Shame you didn't care for the film as much as I though. I will admit the intensity was not nearly as great the second time I viewed it as the first, but I still found it quite enjoyable and yes Affleck is an excellent director. I thought his acting was fine it this one, certainly better than a number of his past roles. I agree that Desplat's score isn't the greatest in this, although I'm not a terribly huge fan of his ZDT score either. I do find it annoying just how many liberties the film takes with the actual story, but I feel that they both were necessary to ramp up the tension and to create a great film. Still 5 stars from me.

[x007AceOfSpades]

I liked it, but I think there were some areas that needed to be improved on to make it more in depth and tense. Affleck is good actor from Hollywoodland and so on, but I just didn't fit in with this one, but I agree it is miles ahead of his past roles. Had the tension been increased, I'm sure It'd be a 5 star film from me. None of Affleck's directorial films have disappointed me though, so I look forward to seeing him working behind the camera again.

[x007AceOfSpades]

Lawless - 4.5/5

 

One of 2012's films that I missed in the theater. Very well made and immensely gripping. Thought Cave and Hillcoat went hand & hand and crafted a wonderful film.  A great new crime film about the Prohibition Era.

 Tom Hardy was great, Jason Clarke was fantastic like he is all of his films, Gary Oldman was good, with there was more of him though. Shia LaBeouf was actually very good in this, there were times where his acting was amazingly top-notch and times where it wasn't too good. Jessica Chastain was great in this and I think she's perfect to act in a film no matter what time period it takes place in, she has this timeless look. Oh and she was very beautiful in this as well haha.  Mia Wasikowska was good, for this being the first film I had seen her in. Her and LaBeouf seemed to have some decent chemistry. Guy Pearce, well, Guy Pearce is brilliant in anything he's in, even his 2 minute role in 'Prometheus'. Very good and nerving acting from him, he was also extremely creeping looking as well.

Pretty good cinematography, not the greatest, but with Hillcoat's direction, this film emulates the era pretty impressively. I really loved the music for this film, great score and songs/song selection from Nick Cave and Warren Ellis.

My only gripes would be the lack of Gary Oldman, he only has about 3 or scenes with the only memorable one being his first scene. The climatic shootout scene wasn't that great and it just suddenly came. I wish there had been some sort of build up to it.

Other than that, A great enjoyable film.

 

 

Also re-watch Argo, new rating: 4.5/5. New review coming later.

[Iceskater101]

Finally got around to watching Argo last night!

I would definitely give it a 9/10 It really kept me on the edge of my seat and it was filmed really well. Overall I thought Affleck did an okay job at acting, but Bryan Cranston and Alan Arkin really sold this film for me. Their acting was really believeable and I think they outshined Ben Affleck. He did an excellent job and I think he deserved the Oscar for best director but at least this movie won best picture.

[x007AceOfSpades]

Glad I'm not the only one on Affleck's acting haha.

 

 

Django Unchained - 3.5/5.

 

The last few films by Quentin Tarantino have been disappointments to me, and the trailer for this film left me underwhelmed and un-interested. The film is basically another wet dream from Tarantino, albeit this one is much more able to stomach and is surprisingly great, but not phenomenal. It would have made for a better summer film to be honest.

 

Jamie Foxx was fantastic as Django, Kerry Washington was wonderful, Walton Goggins was good (big fan of Goggins since the tv show 'The Shield), Loved James Remar in two roles, Samuel L. Jackson was hilarious! Leonardo DiCaprio stole the show though. His performance as Calvin J. Candie was so unnerving and brilliant, I couldn't take my eyes off of him in each scene he was in. He surely should have been nominated alongside Foxx. Christoph Waltz on the other hand I wasn't impressed with. He pretty seemed to be himself again, much like his portrayal of SS Col. Hans Landa in Tarantino's 'Inglorious Basterds'. While he is a good actor, I didn't seem blown away by him this time around.

 

The direction isn't like something we've already seen from Tarantino. Although, it did seem to be better shot than 'Inglorious Basterds' was. The violence so over-the-top it was laughable, but that's not a bad thing! The writing is okay, but I will say that I wasn't to keen on hearing the N word all the time. I know, I know, that's how it was back in that time frame and that's how people were, and I realize that, however there comes a time when you just can't stomach it anymore and you slowly begin to become annoyed with it. The first half of the film, or before they meet Calvin J. Candie, is slow, boring, and un-interesting, and once Candie was introduced, the film picked up for sure. The first half needed a bit more action to help it, or trim off the fat in the editing room.

 

This isn't a bad, film but it isn't an award worthy film in terms of directing and picture. Foxx and DiCaprio are fantastic though. It's surely a fun film, and at time laugh out loud hilarious.

If you're expecting a western film, you are not going to find it here. If you're looking for a Quentin Tarantino film, come on in.

[Iceskater101]

Glad I'm not the only one on Affleck's acting haha.

 

I mean he wasn't bad, I don't know how to describe his acting without revealing spoilers, but I feel like he had no emotion in some scenes when he should be feeling a lot more, but that's just me.

[x007AceOfSpades]

Glad I'm not the only one on Affleck's acting haha.

 

I mean he wasn't bad, I don't know how to describe his acting without revealing spoilers, but I feel like he had no emotion in some scenes when he should be feeling a lot more, but that's just me.

 

To me it just seemed that because he directed it and produced it, he felt the need to insert himself in it as the lead.

[Iceskater101]

Yeah same.. lol I mean he wasn't bad but he wasn't that good either.

[x007AceOfSpades]

Killing Them Softly  3.5/5

 

A film that had always interested me, but stayed away after hearing bad word of mouth. Had nothing to do, so I decided to give it a viewing. It turned out to be pretty damn good. Its not a great gangster/crime film, but its surely worth checking out. Its a film with some great performances from Ray Liotta, Richard Jenkins, and Brad Pitt. Liotta's small role I thought was fantastic. This isn't Brad Pitt's greatest acting, but he can turn some heads for sure as Jackie Cogan. I love Richard Jenkins in just about anything he's in.

 

Loved the editing and the cinematography, however I thought the direction was okay. At times it didnt seem Andrew Dominik knew what the hell kind of film he was making. A neo noir film, a drama, or a gangster/crime film. The dialogue was perfect and the writing was too. I just wish the film had been expanded upon and was presented better, rather than trying to be something it isn't. Entertaining and enjoyable, that is something that bugged me. Also I didnt care for James Gandolfini's scene talking about a "Jewish girl with a nice little ass". It just bugged me a bit and felt weird.

 

I think the problem was that this film was trying to be something it clearly wasn't. However if you love films of similar genres (noir, neo noir, gangster, crime drama) Give it a viewing.

[seawolfnyy]

Finally got around to Taken 2. I'll give it **. The film isn't bad by any means, but it doesn't really stand out. It seems to take absolutely forever to get going. The action is not nearly as fluid as in the first film. Neeson is just as ruthless as ever and I did like watching Maggie Grace take a bigger role, however, it takes away from the plot and the sense of urgency from the first. It seems as if the entire sequence from the time Neeson and Jannsen are jumped in the Bazaar to the end only takes place in the span of about 3 hours. The car chase was great, however, and really seemed as if it could have been Craig or even Damon behind the wheel. Overall though, the film just isn't the same and doesn't really measure up to the first.

[tdalton]

Finally got around to Taken 2. I'll give it **. The film isn't bad by any means, but it doesn't really stand out. It seems to take absolutely forever to get going. The action is not nearly as fluid as in the first film. Neeson is just as ruthless as ever and I did like watching Maggie Grace take a bigger role, however, it takes away from the plot and the sense of urgency from the first. It seems as if the entire sequence from the time Neeson and Jannsen are jumped in the Bazaar to the end only takes place in the span of about 3 hours. The car chase was great, however, and really seemed as if it could have been Craig or even Damon behind the wheel. Overall though, the film just isn't the same and doesn't really measure up to the first.

 

Pretty much agreed. 

 

I would say that neither Taken film is particularly good, and I did end up having a tendency to overrate them upon an initial viewing because the films really just function as a good adrenaline rush.  Upon any subsequent viewing of either film, they really expose themselves as what they are, which is very substandard action films.  Neeson is really the sole highlight of the first film, as the story that that film tells is just ridiculous (there's no way anyone could infiltrate and dismantle a trafficking ring like that in the span of a weekend), and the combo of Neeson and Maggie Grace (who really doesn't get the kind of work that her talent deserves) are really the only highlights of Taken 2. 

[x007AceOfSpades]

The only good thing about 'Taken 2' was Maggie Grace, whom I thought was nice to look at.

[PPK_19]

The only good thing about 'Taken 2' was Maggie Grace, whom I thought was nice to look at.

 

This. It was pretty terrible otherwise. Her lobbing grenades from the rooftops so her dad could hear where she was, was ridiculous. It's a shame because i adored the first taken. Brutal, tense and shocking. 

[x007AceOfSpades]

The only good thing about 'Taken 2' was Maggie Grace, whom I thought was nice to look at.

 

This. It was pretty terrible otherwise. Her lobbing grenades from the rooftops so her dad could hear where she was, was ridiculous. It's a shame because i adored the first taken. Brutal, tense and shocking. 

 

Agreed, it was film that wasn't even trying. It was just unnecessary.

[tdalton]

 

The only good thing about 'Taken 2' was Maggie Grace, whom I thought was nice to look at.

 

This. It was pretty terrible otherwise. Her lobbing grenades from the rooftops so her dad could hear where she was, was ridiculous. It's a shame because i adored the first taken. Brutal, tense and shocking. 

 

Agreed, it was film that wasn't even trying. It was just unnecessary.

 

I don't think that it could be said that either film was really trying, to be honest.  The Taken films are only good for an initial viewing, in which they both manage to get the viewer through the film by simply throwing action scene after action scene at them and generating an adrenaline rush that makes the film seem like it's more than it actually is.  Going back and giving both Taken and Taken 2 a second viewing confirms that they're both simply awful films (and I'm honestly ashamed to have given either of them high marks upon a first viewing).  The only saving grace the first film has is that it somewhat relaunched Neeson's career as an action star, and the only decent thing about Taken 2 is Maggie Grace, who manages to do a decent job of playing a character that is almost half her age.

[x007AceOfSpades]

 

 

The only good thing about 'Taken 2' was Maggie Grace, whom I thought was nice to look at.

 

This. It was pretty terrible otherwise. Her lobbing grenades from the rooftops so her dad could hear where she was, was ridiculous. It's a shame because i adored the first taken. Brutal, tense and shocking. 

 

Agreed, it was film that wasn't even trying. It was just unnecessary.

 

I don't think that it could be said that either film was really trying, to be honest.  The Taken films are only good for an initial viewing, in which they both manage to get the viewer through the film by simply throwing action scene after action scene at them and generating an adrenaline rush that makes the film seem like it's more than it actually is.  Going back and giving both Taken and Taken 2 a second viewing confirms that they're both simply awful films (and I'm honestly ashamed to have given either of them high marks upon a first viewing).  The only saving grace the first film has is that it somewhat relaunched Neeson's career as an action star, and the only decent thing about Taken 2 is Maggie Grace, who manages to do a decent job of playing a character that is almost half her age.

 

I respectfully disagree, 'Taken' is a great, fresh, action-suspense film, with a great story. 'Taken 2' is just a muddled mess of a film

[seawolfnyy]

 

 

 

The only good thing about 'Taken 2' was Maggie Grace, whom I thought was nice to look at.

 

This. It was pretty terrible otherwise. Her lobbing grenades from the rooftops so her dad could hear where she was, was ridiculous. It's a shame because i adored the first taken. Brutal, tense and shocking. 

 

Agreed, it was film that wasn't even trying. It was just unnecessary.

 

I don't think that it could be said that either film was really trying, to be honest.  The Taken films are only good for an initial viewing, in which they both manage to get the viewer through the film by simply throwing action scene after action scene at them and generating an adrenaline rush that makes the film seem like it's more than it actually is.  Going back and giving both Taken and Taken 2 a second viewing confirms that they're both simply awful films (and I'm honestly ashamed to have given either of them high marks upon a first viewing).  The only saving grace the first film has is that it somewhat relaunched Neeson's career as an action star, and the only decent thing about Taken 2 is Maggie Grace, who manages to do a decent job of playing a character that is almost half her age.

 

I respectfully disagree, 'Taken' is a great, fresh, action-suspense film, with a great story. 'Taken 2' is just a muddled mess of a film

Agreed. The first Taken will never be great cinema, but that doesn't mean it's a bad film. I really enjoy the first one, the second one is just a mess and falls into the sequel trap of rehashing and attempting to outdo the first.

[x007AceOfSpades]

As I stated in my review: Taken 2 was made solely as a cash in on the first film's success, not to actually be a good film.

[seawolfnyy]

As with most all sequels.

[x007AceOfSpades]

Well, of course, but it's 50/50. Most are good, most are bad. 'Safe House' is an example of a film that's getting a sequel. The first wasn't even that great.

[seawolfnyy]

Resident Evil: Retribution - *.

 

As awful as the RE film franchise has been, they have at least been decent enough to sit through at least once. Not this one. This is an absolute mess of a film that makes absolutely no sense. Milla Jovovich is as good as ever, but it doesn't help. The bizarreness of the hundreds of clones and the fact that the story is essentially about Umbrella creating a real-life video game to create a global pandemic, just derail an already teetering franchise. Honestly, I would rank RE 5 as one of, if not the worst film of 2012. F*** you Paul W.S. Anderson.

[x007AceOfSpades]

Resident Evil: Retribution - *.
 
As awful as the RE film franchise has been, they have at least been decent enough to sit through at least once. Not this one. This is an absolute mess of a film that makes absolutely no sense. Milla Jovovich is as good as ever, but it doesn't help. The bizarreness of the hundreds of clones and the fact that the story is essentially about Umbrella creating a real-life video game to create a global pandemic, just derail an already teetering franchise. Honestly, I would rank RE 5 as one of, if not the worst film of 2012. F*** you Paul W.S. Anderson.

If it wasnt for Kevin Durand and Johan Urb, I'd probably condemn the film to hell.