Rate/Review new 2012 film releases

A thread for rating 2012 new releases.

Contraband: Mark Whalberg, Kate Beckinsale

I was underwhelmed. Dull and very low rent. Beckinsale is wasted. Much of the movie takes place on a dirty old boat, except when the "action" shifts to dirty old warehouses in Panama.

Should have seen the movie about the guy on the ledge instead, or Haywire.

Safe House: Ryan Reynolds, Denzel Washington, Vera Farmiga

Burned again. 0/2 with new 2012 releases. This is more Bourne inspired Hollywood nonsense, beating us over the head yet again, with the tired old saw that our western intelligence agencies are rife with corruption and must be exposed and defeated. Our hero is naturally up to the task, yadda yadda, saving the world from the CIA. Damon and Greengras would be proud.Farmiga is wasted of course. Reynolds and Denzel hog all the screen time with their never ending gun battles - sometimes shooting at each other and sometimes at the "mysterious enemy." Shoot, shoot, shoot. Yawn, yawn yawn.

I want my $ back! Shoulda waited for GhostRider 2. I'll play it safe next time.

The Grey, Liam Neeson, Dallas Roberts, Frank Grillo


I'm tempted to call this film, The Prey. Might be a more apropos title.
An interesting little film. As much as I love wolves, I wouldn't want to be stranded on their turf, like these poor suckers. I do suspect the wolves' hyper-aggressive predatory man-hunter behaviour was much dramatized for story-telling effect, but still the film works as a fascinating study of the wolf pak. The motley crew of stranded oil-workers were not a very interesting bunch, despite the efforts of the filmmakers to help us get to know them. Nope, the stars of this film are the WOLFS. Arroooooh!

Truthfully I think most in the cinema were in awe of the wolves and were secretly rooting for them. I know I was. Without spoiling anything, the wolves do make out rather well.:twisted:

Act of Valor,Alex Veadov, Roselyn Sanchez and Nestor Serrano

A war film with real-life authenticity: Active Navy SEALs play themselves in a fictionalized account of a mission to rescue a CIA agent and stop a terrorist plot. Using real ammunition, weaponry and tactics, it's like a combination of video game and recruitment film. Real actors also populate the cast; the most recognizable being probably Nestor Serrano. The Seals are the non-actors and it does show, but they make up for it in authencity. This type of presentation is a nice change from wanks like Matt Damon running around pretending to play U.S. soldiers and spewing drivel (The Green Zone). Gripping tense entertainment. Thank God for the Seals and the CIA. Good work men! The world thanks you!!!

Battleship: Stupid as hell, but good fun. The first 45 minutes was pure tedium. Almost ask-for-a refund material. But movie picks-up once the action starts. Then one just enjoys it for what it is - enjoyable escapist entertainment.



Men In Black III: I liked this film a lot. It delivered as promised. Had a real neat twist at the end. Again we have the 1960's retro thing going on, ala X-Men First Class. Lots of fun and lots of jokes. Andy Warhol is given his own unique bizzaro send-up, and we learn that Mick Jagger was exposed as an alien who came to earth to mate with human women.

Stones trippy, 2000 Light Years From Home is featured in the soundtrack. Nice touch there. The recreation of the Apollo 11 Moon launch was really well done. The final action frenzy is centred around the rocket launch.

Snow White and the Hunstsman: Bella meets Thor. Big bore. Could hardly follow what was going on, I was so numb from not caring. And they changed the 7 dwarves names. No Sleepy or Grumpy or Dopey etc, just a bunch of tall actors heads superimposed on little bodies. So we get dwarf Ian McShane and dwarf Bob Hoskins. Kristen Stewart, has cornered the teen-girl market. The showing I attended was packed with teens. Their squeally presence though does create an enthusiastic atmosphere for such a film

Waiting next on Prometheus. That should be a serious film, unlike the three above.

Prometheus: Ridley Scott returns to the franchise he started and does a movie situated before his Alien. He filmed this movie in 3D and that shows in the visuals they are beautifull. The show gets stolen by Fassbender as Daniel who seems to be the HAL in this tale of exploration of Earths past out there is space. Noomi Rapace (from the original Millenium series) is also very good.
This movie veers away from the Alien threat and general OTT battle/fight sequences to another question. Namely what happened before and then dares to give a hint instead of answering it. Roll on the sequels. A satisfying scifi movie if you do not expect it to be a full out prequel to the Alien movies. :4*:

TIP - Do not take any pregnant women or women who are about to conceive to this movie.

Quote :

TIP - Do not take any pregnant women or women who are about to conceive to this movie.

I'll do my best! :) Thanks for the tip.

I'm looking forward to this film.

Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter: Benjamin Walker Good little romp. Didn't need to be in 3d though, but you could say that about virtually all 3d releases. Abe was a true hero! A great American. It's fitting that his vamp fighting exploits are finally coming to light. Long overdue. One of my favourite historical drama films.

Rock of Ages: Julianne Hough, Diego Bonata, Malin Ackerman, Paul Giamatti, Catherine Zeta Jones, Alec Baldwin, Russel Brand and groan Tom Cruise

Prometheus: mainly incomprehensible but works as big cinema "intelligent" escapist fare.

Midseason Rankings Will break ties at a later date, although Avengers holds #1 spot for now, but its going to be real tough to beat. Actually SF will win. I've never ranked a Bond film below any other film in its year. Avengers will likely take best of the rest.

Marvel's The Avengers:

Men In Black 3:

Prometheus:

Act of Valor:

The Grey:

Battleship:

Rock of Ages:

Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter:

Contraband:

Snow White and the Hunstman:

Safe House:

saint mark wrote:

TIP - Do not take any pregnant women or women who are about to conceive to this movie.

That scene wasn't as bad as I expected it to be. I think Game of Thrones has desensitised me to blood n' guts.

Oh yeah, I give Promeththths 2.5/5.

1. PROMETHEUS
2. MARVEL'S THE AVENGERS
3. ABRAHAM LINCOLN VAMPIRE HUNTER
4. THE HUNGER GAMES
5. JOHN CARTER
6. MEN IN BLACK 3
7. WRATH OF THE TITANS
8. BATTLESHIP

Savages, directed by Oliver Stone with Taylor Kitsch, Aaron Johnson and Blake Lively

What a dog's breakfast. Two hours plus of Stone desperately trying to be edgy, deep, stylish, socially relevant and political, and failing miserably at everything. He also tries to outdo Tarantino in the gratuitous, schock-violence department. Yawn. Tarantino at least has some flair. Stone the wanna-be, is smply gross.

Blake Lively was much better in Green Lantern. Kitsch I think, has 3 bombs in a row, as young macho leading man. Add this stinker to John Carter and Battleship, both box-office duds.

For us Bond fans, we get both Benicio Del Toro (LTK) and Juaquin Cosio (QoS's Mendrano) reprising dirt-bag villain roles. Both play vile characters, as they did in their Bond roles.

The film has an absolutely awful ending. I'll just say, characters don't get what's coming to them. I guess this makes Stone edgy and risque, not being predictable like that. I only saw two people walk out -- one couple that gave up after an hour. The girl was probably revolted by the whole mess. Guys will sit through almost anything though.

Also with a much older looking, but effective John Travolta, and a very nasty but charming Salma Hayek.

Quote :

Yawn. Tarantino at least has some flair. Stone the wanna-be, is smply gross.

Other way round. Stone at least has soul and conviction behind his technique that gives it some weight, and yes, justification. With Tarantino it's just aimless film wankery. A load of sound and fury signifying nothing.

Largo's Shark wrote:

Quote :

Yawn. Tarantino at least has some flair. Stone the wanna-be, is smply gross.

Other way round. Stone at least has soul and conviction behind his technique that gives it some weight, and yes, justification. With Tarantino it's just aimless film wankery. A load of sound and fury signifying nothing.

I'm making a comparison to Savages, not Stone's oeuvre, although I'm not a real appreciator of his broader work either. So I'll take Tarantino's wankery over Stone's soulless Savages anyday.

tiffanywint wrote:

Largo's Shark wrote:

Quote :

Yawn. Tarantino at least has some flair. Stone the wanna-be, is smply gross.

Other way round. Stone at least has soul and conviction behind his technique that gives it some weight, and yes, justification. With Tarantino it's just aimless film wankery. A load of sound and fury signifying nothing.

I'm making a comparison to Savages, not Stone's oeuvre, although I'm not a real appreciator of his broader work either. So I'll take Tarantino's wankery over Stone's soulless Savages anyday.

Fair enough. Haven't seen SAVAGES so I won't comment (though I think Armond's reviewed it over at City Arts), but I haven't found QT film that could compare to the likes of SALVADOR, PLATOON, BORN ON THE FOURTH OF JULY, or NIXON. Especially NIXON.

I'll take JFK, NIXON, or U TURN over anything that Tarantino has done.

I find Tarantino's movies to be simply more entertaining. He's not as political, actually not political as all. Stone always seems to be trying to tell me things, that I don't find to be even half-a-smidge as interesting as he thinks they are. His attempts at social commentary fall flat with me.

I did like JFK though in that I do relate to the Garrison prosecution, but there is something offputting about enduring Costner, pontificating about anything. Platoon wasn't bad, although I was pretty young when I first saw it, so I might have liked it for the action and suspense, and tuned out whatever the hell Stone was lecturing on in that film.

FWIW, re Stone and Tarantino. I do of course like to defer to the great Destroyer series author Warren Murphy. Murphy saw fit to have both Stone and Tarantino killed off in his novels. Murph tends to have his Masters of Sinanju eliminate anyone that bothers him in real life. Often he has Remo (Williams) do the deed himself or he arranges that circumstances conspire to "off" the offending parties, after they have been thorougly lampooned and ridiculed of course.:twisted:

tiffanywint wrote:

I find Tarantino's movies to be simply more entertaining. He's not as political, actually not political as all.

That's the problem. You'll be hard pressed to find any politics, religion (or spirituality) or social commentary in his films. He's the ultimate hipster. Locked away in his bubble of junk cinema, not giving a damn about addressing the real world.

For some that's entertaining, but I just find it fucking pathetic.

John Cassavetes where art thou?

Quote :

I did like JFK though in that I do relate to the Garrison prosecution, but there is something offputting about enduring Costner, pontificating about anything. Platoon wasn't bad, although I was pretty young when I first saw it, so I might have liked it for the action and suspense, and tuned out whatever the hell Stone was lecturing on in that film.

I'm not the biggest fan of JFK either, TBH. The way you're thrown with so-called facts without any context or evidence of their veracityticks me off, and the pacing's all off. The film builds up to the Mr. X scene, resets and builds up again to the trial. Way too drawn out, and.you're right, Kostner's lecturing is annoying.

I think you'd enjoy Nixon. Check out the election year Blu-ray with the director's cut.

http://www.amazon.com/Nixon-Blu-ray-Anthony-Hopkins/dp/B0019PL2JI

I mostly like a good story, well-told in terms of the writing and filmmaking.

Largo's Shark wrote:

That's the problem. You'll be hard pressed to find any politics, religion (or spirituality) or social commentary in his films. He's the ultimate hipster. Locked away in his bubble of junk cinema, not giving a damn about addressing the real world.

For some that's entertaining, but I just find it fucking pathetic.

I am not going to dispute any of this, but I do find his movies at least watchable. But yes they are rather soulless. I kinda like the Kill Bill films though. Again I do defer to the great Warren Murphy, which is why I cited his decision to have both filmmakers destroyed in Destroyer world. Murph is saying he finds them both offensive. Thus Remo was dispatched

Largo's Shark wrote:

I'm not the biggest fan of JFK either, TBH. The way you're thrown with so-called facts without any context or evidence of their veracityticks me off, and the pacing's all off. The film builds up to the Mr. X scene, resets and builds up again to the trial. Way too drawn out, and.you're right, Kostner's lecturing is annoying.

I think you'd enjoy Nixon. Check out the election year Blu-ray with the director's cut.

I think I've seen all of Stone's films. I watch them, find them entertaining enough, as passable cinema fare. I'm easy to please in that respect, but my general reaction to an Oliver Stone film is usually along the lines of.

"Well that was interesting, or at least I'm supposed to believe that was interesting. But more to the point, I'm pretty sure, I just don't care about whatever he was getting at. Damn,I need a beer. See ya for the next one Ollie. Oh and did you know Remo offed your sorry ass? Cheers!"

One topic that Stone did handle rather deftly in Savages was the polygamy theme that permeates the relationship between the three young leads, or maybe its better described as girl-friend-sharing from the guys point of view.

However, the Blake Lively character seems to attach some deep, complex, meaningful love vibes to the relationship. But it rings hollow. She sounds like a ditz, like she's trying to rationalize. Meanwhile the guys don't seem as pre-occupied with it. They just take their turns with her, and treat her like a good pal, plus they have other more serious business matters to contend with and their own buddy relationship. Meanwhile chick, obsesses over the 3-way relationship, to the point of please STFU (audience plea)

So what's confusing, is what the heck is Stone trying to say here, because you know he's always trying to say something. Who are we supposed to relate to? :scratch: As a guy, I can see what the guys are getting out of it. They aren't complicated in this respect. Is Stone lecturing on the wonders of "polygamy" from the female perspective and that we guys just don't get it? If so, please again, STFU, I'm not buying. Get on with something I give a crap about. The chick isn't very convincing. So this scenario drags out for most of the movie and we're not sure what to make of it, and just wish it would go away, because other parts of the film, like the story, are potentially more interesting, although not that interesting really. Nothing about the story is very interesting. The movie is more about the cast of seriously flawed characters.

But suddenly out of the blue, the Selma Hayek character, puts the dippie blonde straight. Her words carry weight, being a fellow woman. She tells blondie, that the guys don't really love her, rather they love each other, in a man-man fiercely loyal, bros-for-life way, explaining that's why they share her. This makes sense. That's exactly what's going on. But still blondie isn't convinced. Hayek looks at her like she's daft. So suddenly I want to relate to the Hayek character, but I can't because she's a bloodthirsty bitch. Arrgh.

Such dilemmas are what make the film frustrating to watch. There really is absolutely no character to anchor the film. It is really hard to relate to any of the characters, not even in a compelling anti-hero kind of way. I guess for me, the Kitsch character comes the closest, but I really didn't ultimately care what happened to him. He was in a weird place, like everyone else in the film.

Meanwhile, blondie eventually has misgivings about the 3-way. Groan, meanwhile beat-up audience members scream back at screen, "we don't care anymore" and we probably never did. Somebody shoot somebody already. We haven't had a gory death for a whole 10 minutes.

Eventually the movie mercifully ends and you stampede for the nearest bar.

But ulitmately Stone did handle the 3-way thing fairly thoroughly. Maybe I am being too hard on Savages. Maybe Stone deserves credit for drawing complex characters, but still they are not relatable characters.

The film has two endings. Stone does use a rather original technique to get away with it. I much preferred one of the endings a whole lot more than the other. Others might view it differently.

Maybe this is a good film after-all. Gets you thinking a bit anyway, but it can also induce a headache, and for some, just walking out the door in time for a refund, might be an appropriate and understandable response.

Another thing that is offputting, is that Stone is so blatant when he's peddling his little scraps of social commentary. He has the characters mouth his platitudes of course, but its so frigging obvious that its him speaking,(fuck you Stone) as opposed to realizing characters that might simply have opinions.

I'm still giving it . Bite me Stone!

"The Avengers" A-
"The Dark Knight Rises" B+
"Brave" B+
"Prometheus" B
"Men In Black 3" B-
"The Amazing Spider-Man" B-
"John Carter" B-
"Chernobyl Diaries" F

Prior to TDKR, the best film I'd seen all year had been 21 Jump Street.

It's been slim pickings. We haven't even had Moonrise Kingdom over here yet.