Explore
 Lists  Reviews  Images  Update feed
Categories
MoviesTV ShowsMusicBooksGamesDVDs/Blu-RayPeopleArt & DesignPlacesWeb TV & PodcastsToys & CollectiblesComic Book SeriesBeautyAnimals   View more categories »
Listal logo
All reviews - Movies (7833) - TV Shows (10)

An average movie

Posted : 13 years, 8 months ago on 25 September 2011 05:39 (A review of Clash of the Titans)

To be honest, even though this movie has a rather lame reputation, I don't think it was so bad after all. I mean, from the very beginning until the end, I have to admit that it was pretty cheesy and, very often, it didn't miss much to become really lame but I thought it was eventually watchable. First of all, I haven't seen the original version so I have no idea if this remake was better or worse. Still, I was rather impressed by the interesting cast (Sam Worthington, Liam Neeson, Ralph Fiennes, Jason Flemyng, Gemma Arterton, Alexa Davalos, Mads Mikkelsen, Pete Postlethwaite, Kaya Scodelario, Luke Evans) even if most of them actually gave some rather poor performances. Of course, they were not helped by the weak dialogues but I must say that the story was not bad (better than, for example, 'Prince of Persia' which was also released in 2010). There could have been more attention given to the interesting relationship between Men and Gods but obviously, we were dealing here with a huge special effects extravaganza. And indeed, the special effects were pretty good even though the CGI started to look rather fake after a while. To conclude, before watching such a flick, you shouldn't expect a masterpiece but a popcorn blockbuster and since I had some rather low expectations, it didn't disappoint me and if you want to see some brainless entertainment, it might be actually worth a look.



0 comments, Reply to this entry

An average movie

Posted : 13 years, 8 months ago on 24 September 2011 06:03 (A review of The Great Outdoors)

Nowadays, I have Netflix and Popcorn and not only I have since then an endless selection or movies to choose from but, as a result, I have become slightly more picky regarding the movies I watch. Before, I used to watch pretty much anything as long as it was starring one or two actors I was interested in and, as a result, I would sometimes end up watching some really obscure features. This movie was a perfect example and the only reason I watched it was because it was featuring Dan Aykroyd and John Candy. Well, eventually, I thought the damned thing was not bad at all. Basically, it was a typical comedy from the 80's and I especially  enjoyed John Candy who was just pitch-perfect for this part. However, I wasn't so convinced by Dan Aykroyd. I mean, it was nice to see him trying something else but his character was just so obnoxious that I was more annoyed than amused by him. Another thing that annoyed me was the romantic sub-plot involving Candy's oldest son. Indeed, the whole thing was boring, pretty weak and had nothing to do with the rest of the story. Still, it was a well made and rather entertaining comedy and it is worth a look, especially if you like this genre.


0 comments, Reply to this entry

An average movie

Posted : 13 years, 8 months ago on 24 September 2011 05:31 (A review of The Three Musketeers (1993))

Like so many other famous tales like Tarzan, Dracula, Peter Pan or Sherlock Holmes, this story has been adapted so many times already. Basically, every decade, they come up with a new version and this movie produced by Disney was basically the 90's version and, almost 20 years later, Paul W.S. Anderson would come up with yet another version. Well, even though there was really nothing mind-blowing with this version, I thought it was still not bad at all. First of all,  I really liked the cast (Charlie Sheen, Kiefer Sutherland, Chris O'Donnell, Oliver Platt, Tim Curry, Rebecca De Mornay, Gabrielle Anwar, Julie Delpy). Furthermore, the whole thing was rather well made and fairly entertaining. Eventually, the only really issue with this movie was that, since I was so familiar with the material, they really had to add something new or exciting to make it really interesting but, unfortunately, it was the most straightforward adaptation that you could imagine. As a result, the whole thing was just really predictable and even seriously generic and, to be honest,  I’m pretty sure I will forget most of it within a couple of days. Anyway, in spite of its flaws, I still think it is worth a look, especially if you like the genre.



0 comments, Reply to this entry

An average movie

Posted : 13 years, 8 months ago on 23 September 2011 12:04 (A review of Timeline)

Honestly, since this movie had some rather low ratings, I wasn’t expecting much but anything directed by Richard Donner is worth a look in my book. Indeed, back in the 80's and 90's , Richard Donner was one of the most successful action directors in the world but, unfortunately, we don't hear much about him nowadays and it is not with such movies that he will be back on the A list (on the other hand, at 80 years old, it might be time for him to retire). Anyway, even though I thought this movie would really stink, it was actually not that bad. First of all, there was an interesting cast (Paul Walker, Frances O'Connor, Gerard Butler, Billy Connolly, David Thewlis, Anna Friel, Michael Sheen, Lambert Wilson), even though Paul Walker was not really the best choice to portray the main character (Except for the ‘Fast and Furious’ franchise, the guy never really had much success and he definitely never convinced anyone about his leading man potential). The main issue was actually with the story itself. Indeed, it was just a really pedestrian and routine time-travel tale and the whole thing was not really thrilling whatsoever. To conclude, even though it was not a very bad movie, it was still pretty damned average and it is not really worth a look, I’m afraid.


0 comments, Reply to this entry

An average movie

Posted : 13 years, 8 months ago on 23 September 2011 11:22 (A review of Street Kings)

I wasn’t really sure what to expect from this flick but since there was a really neat cast involved, I was quite eager to check it out. Well, eventually, I thought it was not bad at all. First of all, there was indeed an impressive cast (Keanu Reeves, Forest Whitaker, Hugh Laurie, Chris Evans, Cedric the Entertainer, Jay Mohr, Terry Crews, Naomie Harris, Common, The Game, John Corbett) and they all gave some decent performances. It was above all pretty neat to see Keanu Reeves trying something else for this movie and I thought he actually pulled it off pretty well. Concerning the story itself, sure, it was entertaining enough but it was still nothing mind-blowing though. Indeed, it was pretty much a generic dirty cop thriller and the whole thing was rather predictable. The other thing that bothered me was that the beginning scene was quite impressive but the rest of the movie didn't actually match the beginning at all . It is pretty obvious that it was David Ayer’s only 2nd directing effort and, 4 years later, he would come up with with another cop feature called ‘End of Watch’ which would turn out to be really awesome. Anyway, coming back to our main feature,  it remains a well made and entertaining flick and it is definitely worth a look.


0 comments, Reply to this entry

An average movie

Posted : 13 years, 8 months ago on 22 September 2011 11:55 (A review of I Am Dina)

Honestly, before watching this flick, I had actually never heard of it so I really had no idea what to expect from it but since it was starring GĂ©rard Depardieu, I thought I should give it a shot. In IMDB, it says that it was the most expensive movie produced in Norway and I must say the movie did indeed look pretty good. Furthermore, all the actors gave some good performances, especially Maria Bonnevie, GĂ©rard Depardieu, Christopher Eccleston and Mads Mikkelsen. Still, I can’t say I was really impressed by the whole thing though. Indeed, the main issue I had was with the story. I mean, it was not bad but I can't say I was really blown away or fascinated by it whatsoever and I didn’t care much about the characters involved either. Basically, it was a really ambitious production but eventually, it only partially succeeded. As a footnote, I discovered later on that this movie was actually directed by Ole Bornedal who directed ‘Nightwatch’ (both the original and American versions). To conclude, in spite of its flaws, it still remains an intriguing feature and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you are interested in Scandinavian movies.


0 comments, Reply to this entry

A good movie

Posted : 13 years, 8 months ago on 21 September 2011 06:44 (A review of Role Models)

I wasn’t really sure what to expect from this flick but since it seemed to have a decent reputation, I thought I might as well check it out. Concerning Seann William Scott, even though the guy has a rather lame reputation, it is rather surprising that, from all the actors involved in ‘American Pie’, he turned out to be the only one to have a decent career. Anyway, coming back to our main feature, comedy must be the genre for which I am the most critical about. It probably has to do with the fact that most of the time, I don't find anything really funny in most of the comedies released nowadays. Anyway, this time, I was pleasantly surprised. Indeed, Seann William Scott was pretty good and Paul Rudd was just hilarious and, together, they provided a really awesome duo. Seriously, the beginning was just a riot and I was laughing my ass off during the whole thing. Unfortunately, the plot then went on auto-pilot (they become role models, they first hate it but then they become BFF with the kids, of course, they screw it up but then they manage to fix everything at the end...). That's too bad since it made the whole thing rather unoriginal and completely predictable but, still, it remains a very funny and entertaining comedy and it is definitely worth a look.



0 comments, Reply to this entry

A good movie

Posted : 13 years, 8 months ago on 21 September 2011 06:13 (A review of Traitor)

I wasn’t really sure what to expect from this movie but since it looked promising, I thought I might as well check it out. First of all, Don Cheadle and Guy Pearce must be two of the most underrated actors at work nowadays and it was a real treat to see them together. To be honest, I must say that, even though Guy Pearce was as usual pretty good in this movie, I thought the guy was actually rather underused. On the other hand, it was pretty neat that Don Cheadle was playing the lead for once and he delivered once again a really strong performance. Concerning the story, I thought it was entertaining enough but, to be honest, it was nothing really mind-blowing. I mean, they went for a gritty approach but even so, it remained a rather far-fetched thriller with a rather convoluted story. On top of that, seriously, I’m pretty sure I will forget the whole thing in a couple of days. Concerning Jeffrey Nachmanoff, even though it was a decent directing effort, the guy wouldn’t direct another movie during the next 10 years. Anyway, to conclude, it was a rather well made terrorism related thriller and, thanks above all to the good actors involved, it is an enjoyable flick and it is definitely worth a look.



0 comments, Reply to this entry

An average movie

Posted : 13 years, 8 months ago on 20 September 2011 01:38 (A review of Dr. Dolittle)

By now, I have seen almost all the movies starring Eddie Murphy (they all show up sooner on later on the diverse Dutch channels I have) and his career can be split basically in 3 parts. First, you had the 80's during which his movies were some massive box-office success, often critically heralded, making Murphy a superstar in the process. Then, you had the 90's during which Eddie Murphy was still pretty successful, even though the movies were not really that good. Finally, you have the part which started at the beginning of the 00's and which is still ongoing nowadays, a period during which Murphy has been making one terrible movie after the other, movies which always flopped at the box-office. This flick was definitely a typical effort from the 90's. Indeed, it was pretty popular and generated a sequel and, eventually, I have to admit, it was not bad at all. Actually, for once, Eddie Murphy gave a sober performance as a straight guy, instead of the foul-mouthed hysterical characters he usually plays and, this time, the main attraction were actually the talking animals which were most of the time actually pretty funny. To conclude, it is nothing mind-blowing whatsoever and the plot was definitely ridiculous but it remains a funny and entertaining mainstream feature and it think it is worth a look, especially if you like the genre.


0 comments, Reply to this entry

A bad movie

Posted : 13 years, 8 months ago on 20 September 2011 11:38 (A review of When Time Ran Out...)

To be honest, I wasn’t expecting much from this flick but since I always had a weak spot for Paul Newman, I thought I might as well check it out. Unfortunately, the whole thing was indeed pretty bad. Indeed, back then, at the end of the 70’s, there was this wave of disaster movies, some of them were actually pretty good but some of them were pretty bad and this movie might have been the worst I ever seen in this genre. At least, Paul Newman gave, as usual, a decent performance but he looked just so bored during the whole thing. And indeed, it was really a boring movie. In fact, at some point in his life, Newman himself confessed that this film was the only one he ever did for the money. The makers did try to add some supposedy 'exciting' scenes but none of them tuned out to be actually thrilling whatsoever. Furthermore, the dialogues were just laughable and the special effects were even worse. Eventually, I have to admit that I have never been a huge of fan disaster movies but this movie just sucked big time. To conclude, this flick was never really entertaining whatsoever and you should really avoid it.



0 comments, Reply to this entry