Welcome to the new profile
We're still working on updating some profile features. To see the badges, ratings breakdowns, and polls for this profile, please go to the previous version.
Reviews113
frankwhat's rating
The third installment of the "Pirates" saga kicked off and I got to screen it a day early. I really enjoyed the first entry and thought the second one was over-budgeted and ended up taking the series in a direction that I didn't like. "At World's End" wouldn't be much different. It ironically turned out to be similar in structure to the third "Spider-Man" movie which opened up only a couple weeks earlier being that it was a little too long, had corny love scenes, and was extremely confusing to a majority of the viewers. However I think that "Spider-Man 3" was the better film as this one exceeded to excess on all those factors. While there was action aplenty and even scenes I liked, when I left the theater I harbored an empty feeling.
It was evident that while the action was there, a really satisfying concrete story wasn't. For example a new type of all-powerful character was introduced and built up for the first two-thirds of the movie, but when they finally do come to fruition it's an extreme letdown. In fact many new elements were introduced that weren't fully explained that just left me wondering why they even needed to throw these in the script in the first place. It was if they were more concerned about creating a long running time than an understandable story.
The swashbuckling was decent and there were many fights, however not as many important ones as there were in the first two where it had more one-on-one duels. Here there were many every person for themselves free for all's. Another problem was the blur of succeeding betrayals. This made it hard to distinguish who was who. I like knowing whom to root for, or at least thinking I know who to root for. The special effects were amazing and the actual production itself was pretty flawless but it was a clear case of all style and no substance. Well maybe not no substance, but very little.
Johnny Depp while having some funny moments didn't build on his character whatsoever and didn't even have the most comical parts this time around. They seemed to have gone to the parrot and the monkey. At least half of Sparrow's humor fell flat, as they were just rehashed jokes and retorts that I heard back in elementary school. Orlando Bloom's acting was safely bad as usual in his case. Keira Knightley was okay, but she's more there as a pretty face than a legitimate thespian. The supporting cast was exceptional though just as they had been in the first two movies, and luckily for the ticket buyer they had a lot of screen time. So between the good and the bad here it about evened out.
At least all the open-ended conflicts were resolved at the end and there weren't anymore real cliffhangers. However it's appearing pretty favorable that there's going to be another trilogy on top of this which I'm not looking forward to as the series quality has declined steadily with each film. It's basically one big money making scheme now by just throwing a bunch of special effects on the screen along with a few cute people and have the young masses come teeming in spending their parents not so hard-earned dough. This is why I wish they just ended everything here while there was still a shred of dignity left, but Hollywood can't seem to let anything be if there's a shred of money to be made lately.
Even though this was a long movie it actually goes by somewhat quickly which was especially surprisingly given how slow moving some of the scenes are and the fact that a lot of inane dialog is thrown into the mix. It actually is worth watching and is probably even above average but falls far short of what it could've been. I also predict that this will break box office records without a doubt, as a film doesn't have to be good to achieve that anymore. "Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End" was decent but didn't live up to the anticipation that was generated and if these epics are continued to be made like this I'll certainly be at wit's end!
It was evident that while the action was there, a really satisfying concrete story wasn't. For example a new type of all-powerful character was introduced and built up for the first two-thirds of the movie, but when they finally do come to fruition it's an extreme letdown. In fact many new elements were introduced that weren't fully explained that just left me wondering why they even needed to throw these in the script in the first place. It was if they were more concerned about creating a long running time than an understandable story.
The swashbuckling was decent and there were many fights, however not as many important ones as there were in the first two where it had more one-on-one duels. Here there were many every person for themselves free for all's. Another problem was the blur of succeeding betrayals. This made it hard to distinguish who was who. I like knowing whom to root for, or at least thinking I know who to root for. The special effects were amazing and the actual production itself was pretty flawless but it was a clear case of all style and no substance. Well maybe not no substance, but very little.
Johnny Depp while having some funny moments didn't build on his character whatsoever and didn't even have the most comical parts this time around. They seemed to have gone to the parrot and the monkey. At least half of Sparrow's humor fell flat, as they were just rehashed jokes and retorts that I heard back in elementary school. Orlando Bloom's acting was safely bad as usual in his case. Keira Knightley was okay, but she's more there as a pretty face than a legitimate thespian. The supporting cast was exceptional though just as they had been in the first two movies, and luckily for the ticket buyer they had a lot of screen time. So between the good and the bad here it about evened out.
At least all the open-ended conflicts were resolved at the end and there weren't anymore real cliffhangers. However it's appearing pretty favorable that there's going to be another trilogy on top of this which I'm not looking forward to as the series quality has declined steadily with each film. It's basically one big money making scheme now by just throwing a bunch of special effects on the screen along with a few cute people and have the young masses come teeming in spending their parents not so hard-earned dough. This is why I wish they just ended everything here while there was still a shred of dignity left, but Hollywood can't seem to let anything be if there's a shred of money to be made lately.
Even though this was a long movie it actually goes by somewhat quickly which was especially surprisingly given how slow moving some of the scenes are and the fact that a lot of inane dialog is thrown into the mix. It actually is worth watching and is probably even above average but falls far short of what it could've been. I also predict that this will break box office records without a doubt, as a film doesn't have to be good to achieve that anymore. "Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End" was decent but didn't live up to the anticipation that was generated and if these epics are continued to be made like this I'll certainly be at wit's end!
An intelligent horror film goes a long way in my book and "28 Weeks Later" did exactly that. I enjoyed the first one but thought it was only slightly above average. Although the extreme low budget utilized did add to the credibility of the impressive box office underdog that resulted. Usually when money is added to a sequel, havoc is wreaked and the franchise tends to get washed down the tubes. This was not the case here as the second installment proved to be just as intelligent, if not more so. While it was a zombie-type film, it contained everyday concerns that our world faces.
Technically those infected aren't zombies, so while it isn't a zombie movie per se they do possess very similar characteristics to them. The way the virus can be transmitted has properties of HIV, but I don't think there was a social statement there as it was probably more coincidental. On the other hand, references to the war in Iraq were a little more poignant and while I don't think it was a direct blow the director definitely wanted to point out how us Americans love our guns. Which is true. Chances are the U.S. soldiers here behaved exactly the same as they would in an actual confrontation such as this could it occur. They'd operate under the same short fuse and eagerness to bring out the big guns rather than sincerely try to rebuild a lost civilization.
As good as the story was, it wasn't without a fair share of errors. For starters there were huge gaps in the continuity between both movies. Rules that were set in "28 Days Later" went ignored in the sequel, and even some new ones were put into effect. Also the editing was so jumpy that any viewer who succumbs to motion sickness should steer clear, as the camera tends to bounce around mercilessly. I thought some of the action sequences were put together too messily as it was very hard to make out what was going on in some of them as well.
The acting itself was very appropriate for its genre and there were no extreme over-the-top theatrics that usually make me want to strangle some of the characters myself. My absolute favorite had to be Jeremy Renner though. I've been following him ever since his first underground film and while stardom has managed to elude him for quite some time, I think he is an excellent artist. Idris Elba I also adore ever since I've seen him on "The Wire", and he was great here, however his part seemed much too small for a gentleman of his caliber. Imogen Poots was visually stunning and I must say I was rather impressed with Rose Byrne who often tickles me as an annoying character. Robert Carlyle was good as usual in a creepy kind of role that he seems no stranger to. A lot of the audience seemed to pan him early on for a life changing decision he makes that is easy to find fault in. However in a survival viewpoint, he really did the right thing given the sure doom layout that was set before him and due to the fact that he only had a split second to determine what to do.
Now that the year is almost at the halfway mark, I must admit that I've been very impressed with what has been laid out so far. The cinema was getting so bad that I agreed with all the people that stopped going because of how outrageous the prices were getting. The costs have grown even worse in the meantime but they are almost worth it again and I wouldn't doubt it if the cycle reverses soon. "28 Weeks Later" is the best horror film I've seen in 2007 and I can't imagine what it'd take to beat it. This was an intellectual gore fest that combined great writing, excellent acting, and a break from formulaic slashers. I highly recommend this to just about anyone that can handle the jumps it dishes out and am willing to bet a third chapter will be on the way. Hopefully they can think of a better title than "28 Months Later" by then!
Technically those infected aren't zombies, so while it isn't a zombie movie per se they do possess very similar characteristics to them. The way the virus can be transmitted has properties of HIV, but I don't think there was a social statement there as it was probably more coincidental. On the other hand, references to the war in Iraq were a little more poignant and while I don't think it was a direct blow the director definitely wanted to point out how us Americans love our guns. Which is true. Chances are the U.S. soldiers here behaved exactly the same as they would in an actual confrontation such as this could it occur. They'd operate under the same short fuse and eagerness to bring out the big guns rather than sincerely try to rebuild a lost civilization.
As good as the story was, it wasn't without a fair share of errors. For starters there were huge gaps in the continuity between both movies. Rules that were set in "28 Days Later" went ignored in the sequel, and even some new ones were put into effect. Also the editing was so jumpy that any viewer who succumbs to motion sickness should steer clear, as the camera tends to bounce around mercilessly. I thought some of the action sequences were put together too messily as it was very hard to make out what was going on in some of them as well.
The acting itself was very appropriate for its genre and there were no extreme over-the-top theatrics that usually make me want to strangle some of the characters myself. My absolute favorite had to be Jeremy Renner though. I've been following him ever since his first underground film and while stardom has managed to elude him for quite some time, I think he is an excellent artist. Idris Elba I also adore ever since I've seen him on "The Wire", and he was great here, however his part seemed much too small for a gentleman of his caliber. Imogen Poots was visually stunning and I must say I was rather impressed with Rose Byrne who often tickles me as an annoying character. Robert Carlyle was good as usual in a creepy kind of role that he seems no stranger to. A lot of the audience seemed to pan him early on for a life changing decision he makes that is easy to find fault in. However in a survival viewpoint, he really did the right thing given the sure doom layout that was set before him and due to the fact that he only had a split second to determine what to do.
Now that the year is almost at the halfway mark, I must admit that I've been very impressed with what has been laid out so far. The cinema was getting so bad that I agreed with all the people that stopped going because of how outrageous the prices were getting. The costs have grown even worse in the meantime but they are almost worth it again and I wouldn't doubt it if the cycle reverses soon. "28 Weeks Later" is the best horror film I've seen in 2007 and I can't imagine what it'd take to beat it. This was an intellectual gore fest that combined great writing, excellent acting, and a break from formulaic slashers. I highly recommend this to just about anyone that can handle the jumps it dishes out and am willing to bet a third chapter will be on the way. Hopefully they can think of a better title than "28 Months Later" by then!
Ultimately I was highly impressed by the last installment of a trilogy that due to its immediate success has spawned a supposedly unplanned follow-up trilogy. "Spider-Man 3" starts off on a happy note and all is well for Peter Parker, however things quickly go awry as his web gets even more tangled than ever before. A big warning to all potential viewers should be that if they're not familiar with the comic books with at least a general knowledge of the new villains, then there's a favorable chance that they will become completely lost along the way. This is mainly due to the fact that so many characters and subplots were crammed into too short of a time and the story moves along at a lighting fast pace. If you aren't paying attention I can see how it'd be very easy to get confused about who's who.
Even though there was a mostly younger cast they all did supremely well. Tobey Maguire was probably the only exception but even he was okay. J.K. Simmons was absolutely hilarious and even though he was cramped for screen time, whenever he was present the audience was laughing. The same went for Bruce Campbell who despite only having one scene, made sure all eyes were on him for that whole time. The biggest surprise for me was Bryce Dallas Howard who I normally haven't been thrilled by, nevertheless was very pleasant here both on the eyes and acting-wise.
The biggest weakness of this film besides squeezing too much into it, was the cheese factor. The worst of the worst was when Spider-Man runs past an American flag. This was tied with the jazz club dance routine. The audience was literally groaning out loud at this and ruined the momentum that was built up until these points. Plain and simple they just didn't belong. I'm not even going to comment on when Peter Parker develops a darker side since that sequence was too corny to capture the essence of in mere words.
On the brighter side there were many pluses, the first being the CGI as it was incredible. So much work must've been put into making the Sandman character as they fine-tuned him down to each grain. I also was impressed at how so many separate stories were tied together so well. The musical score was invigorating and set an appropriate pace. Even though the running length clocked in at around two-and-a-half hours, I couldn't tell since there weren't many slow moments and it seemed to fly by. The producers could've easily added on another half-hour and I wouldn't have noticed. That might've even been a better way to go.
Any true fans of the "Spider-Man" franchise should see this. The tone and style are a lot different than the first two, but in some ways this is better since it adds a darker feel to the experience. There are some great quotes as always, which is a bare essential of any worthwhile comic book adaptation. To all those cynics that are complaining about the lack of clearly defined villains, well welcome to reality. Even the most ruthless bad guys either have some good to them in real life, or there were mitigating reasons for what made them into what they are. I thought that touch made it easier to identify with the antagonists since they had actual human aspects to them.
Sam Raimi stuck to his artistic vision as best that he could and the successful completion of a blockbuster such as this deserves the high box office results it'll certainly produce. I'm very glad that they will continue the series even if it means bringing in a new cast and crew. Spider-Man was one of my favorite superheroes growing up as a kid due to his sheer ordinary daytime persona and the horrible things he'd have to endure. Yet he'd keep on going, not by relying on his superhuman powers but by getting by with sheer determination along with the love from his family and friends. Thankfully "Spider-Man 3" didn't stray too far away from the comic books that it was based on, and was one of those movies that really make you stop to think about the fairness in life. It strives to be more than it is and in most cases, that's exactly what it does. As Stan Lee would say himself, "'Nuff said!"
Even though there was a mostly younger cast they all did supremely well. Tobey Maguire was probably the only exception but even he was okay. J.K. Simmons was absolutely hilarious and even though he was cramped for screen time, whenever he was present the audience was laughing. The same went for Bruce Campbell who despite only having one scene, made sure all eyes were on him for that whole time. The biggest surprise for me was Bryce Dallas Howard who I normally haven't been thrilled by, nevertheless was very pleasant here both on the eyes and acting-wise.
The biggest weakness of this film besides squeezing too much into it, was the cheese factor. The worst of the worst was when Spider-Man runs past an American flag. This was tied with the jazz club dance routine. The audience was literally groaning out loud at this and ruined the momentum that was built up until these points. Plain and simple they just didn't belong. I'm not even going to comment on when Peter Parker develops a darker side since that sequence was too corny to capture the essence of in mere words.
On the brighter side there were many pluses, the first being the CGI as it was incredible. So much work must've been put into making the Sandman character as they fine-tuned him down to each grain. I also was impressed at how so many separate stories were tied together so well. The musical score was invigorating and set an appropriate pace. Even though the running length clocked in at around two-and-a-half hours, I couldn't tell since there weren't many slow moments and it seemed to fly by. The producers could've easily added on another half-hour and I wouldn't have noticed. That might've even been a better way to go.
Any true fans of the "Spider-Man" franchise should see this. The tone and style are a lot different than the first two, but in some ways this is better since it adds a darker feel to the experience. There are some great quotes as always, which is a bare essential of any worthwhile comic book adaptation. To all those cynics that are complaining about the lack of clearly defined villains, well welcome to reality. Even the most ruthless bad guys either have some good to them in real life, or there were mitigating reasons for what made them into what they are. I thought that touch made it easier to identify with the antagonists since they had actual human aspects to them.
Sam Raimi stuck to his artistic vision as best that he could and the successful completion of a blockbuster such as this deserves the high box office results it'll certainly produce. I'm very glad that they will continue the series even if it means bringing in a new cast and crew. Spider-Man was one of my favorite superheroes growing up as a kid due to his sheer ordinary daytime persona and the horrible things he'd have to endure. Yet he'd keep on going, not by relying on his superhuman powers but by getting by with sheer determination along with the love from his family and friends. Thankfully "Spider-Man 3" didn't stray too far away from the comic books that it was based on, and was one of those movies that really make you stop to think about the fairness in life. It strives to be more than it is and in most cases, that's exactly what it does. As Stan Lee would say himself, "'Nuff said!"