Dell's Good, Bad & Ugly Movie Reviews

Champ · Jun 1, 2012

Finally got around to catching Beats Rhyme and Life and I agree with you 100%. Great documentary but I felt like we should have been given more. Also the Tip and Phife bickering was like two teenage girls. Phife being envious and jealous of Qtip and Qtip being a control whore.

dell71 · Jun 1, 2012

Batman: Year One
Directed by Sam Liu and Lauren Montgomery.
2011. Rated PG-13, 64 minutes.
Cast:
Bryan Cranston
Ben McKenzie
Eliza Dushku
Jon Polito
Alex Rocco
Katee Sackhoff
Jeff Bennett
Grey DeLisle
Robin Atkin Downes
Fred Tatasciore

For those living under a rock, Bruce Wayne’s (McKenzie) parents were murdered in front of him during a mugging gone wrong back when he was a wee lad. After years of training abroad, he returns to his hometown of Gotham City and fights crime under the guise of his alter-ego Batman. As you might imagine, taking on bad guys all by yourself lonesome while simultaneously avoiding the local police is not easy. Mistakes are bound to be made. Batman: Year One is largely about those mistakes.

The mini-series turned graphic novel of the same name doesn’t change the Batman story, but it injects it with a realism that was sorely missing when it was written in 1987, even before the Tim Burton directed Batman hit the big screen. At that time, DC Comics was modernizing their entire universe since many characters had been around for 40 or 50 years by that point. For Batman, this meant getting as far away as possible from the hero’s perception as a campy crimefighter in Technicolor world as created by the iconic 60s TV series starring Adam West. Frank Miller of Sin City fame took on the task.

Miller wisely kept intact the details of how Mr. Wayne became Batman. Much of his efforts concentrate on the rest of Caped Crusader’s world. Fitting of a town overflowing with supervillains, Gotham City is now a dark, foreboding landscape where corruption runs rampant. For that reason, it’s important that Year One is as much the story of soon-to-be police commissioner Jim Gordon (Cranston). He’s a straight and narrow type who doesn’t take too kindly to costumed vigilantes taking the law into their own hands.

The movie is pretty much a verbatim transfer from its source material. The graphic novel was groundbreaking. It did indeed help alter our collective idea of Batman. This film, unfortunately feels at least 7 or 8 years too late. Though neither is officially an adaptation, both Burton’s 1989 movie and 2005’s Batman Begins directed by Christopher Nolan incorporate elements of the book to greater effect if for no other reason than coming before Year One. Nolan’s movie appropriates Miller’s entire world and uses some of the same scenes, including the teaser ending. Those things make it hard to judge Year One on its own merits. It feels like an unnecessary origin movie for a character that already has two wildly popular such films, one of which isn’t very old. It offers nothing new, even though the exact same material was revolutionary when it was first published.

If you can judge it on its own, you’ll realize Year One is still an interesting entry into the Batman canon. Even more than the Nolan films, it fleshes out Jim Gordon to the point where he is actually the hero. Bryan Cranston is wonderful in the role, faring far better than the lethargic sounding McKenzie in the title role. The man in the cowl is much more of a disturbed guy with a death wish. He’s also a more vulnerable Batman and gets roughed up quite a bit. Roughed up includes getting shot. Yes, this is a decidedly mature representation of the character that earns its PG-13 rating. There is also a brief handling of the origin of Catwoman (Dushku). If you can’t judge it on its own, think of this as an alternate version of the second half of Batman Begins.

MY SCORE: 7/10

A Tasty Burgerr · Jun 3, 2012

I think I remember you having reviews for other Batman cartoons, would you say the animation is pretty similar to Under the Red Hood?

dell71 · Jun 3, 2012

Not really. When I said it's a verbatim transfer of the graphic novel, that includes the art as much as possible. The major difference being that the edges are smoothed out giving it a cleaner look.

And yeah, there are several Batman cartoons reviewed here. Check the OP for links.

A Tasty Burgerr · Jun 3, 2012

Well that is good to hear. I don't know if you've heard but they are also adapting The Dark Knight Returns into two movies with Peter Weller voicing Batman, not sure about that.

dell71 · Jun 3, 2012

Actually, I hadn't heard that. Thanks.

calgaryballer · Jun 3, 2012

Re: Warrior.

For the most part I enjoyed the movie. However, as an MMA fan I couldn't help leaving with a bad taste in my mouth about how the fighting was portrayed. I know it's for the cameras, but too may times I was yelling at the ref (the always mediocre Josh Rosenthal) to stop the fight. I think with boxing, it was a much more main stream sport in the '80s so for Rocky to take it to cartoonish limits, that was fine and people realized it was for the sake of an enjoyable movie. With MMA, I think it's still new and would have a bunch of people seeing this movie and having it confirm all of their worst suspicions about who participates in MMA.

When I finished the movie, I was torn. I enjoyed the performances (Hardy, Nolte, the guy from Animal Kingdom), but the sheer silliness of the tourney kind of left me wanting something a bit different

dell71 · Jun 4, 2012

calgaryballer said:
Re: Warrior.

For the most part I enjoyed the movie. However, as an MMA fan I couldn't help leaving with a bad taste in my mouth about how the fighting was portrayed. I know it's for the cameras, but too may times I was yelling at the ref (the always mediocre Josh Rosenthal) to stop the fight. I think with boxing, it was a much more main stream sport in the '80s so for Rocky to take it to cartoonish limits, that was fine and people realized it was for the sake of an enjoyable movie. With MMA, I think it's still new and would have a bunch of people seeing this movie and having it confirm all of their worst suspicions about who participates in MMA.

When I finished the movie, I was torn. I enjoyed the performances (Hardy, Nolte, the guy from Animal Kingdom), but the sheer silliness of the tourney kind of left me wanting something a bit different

Interesting take. I'm not an MMA fan and it didn't really change my opinion of the sport one way or another, but I can see how it might for some people. In that regard, maybe having it be PG-13 may have helped. Since it could've been even more brutal.

dell71 · Jun 7, 2012

Super 8
Directed by J. J. Abrams.
2011. Rated PG-13, 111 minutes.
Cast:
Joel Courtney
Elle Fanning
Riley Griffiths
Kyle Chandler
Ron Eldard
Zach Mills
Gabriel Basso
Amanda Michalka
Joel McKinnon Miller
Jessica Tuck

A group of middle-school friends are making their own zombie movie using a Super-8 camera. By the way, we’re in 1979 so they can’t use a digital camera or upload it to YouTube. They all sneak out of their houses late at night to film a pivotal scene at the local train station. While they’re shooting, a passing train is spectacularly derailed by a pickup truck purposely driven on the tracks directly at said train. It soon becomes clear that something very scary, very dangerous and very different has escaped from the wreckage and terrorizes the small town.

Super 8 is one of those movies where it’s biggest strength may also be its greatest weakness. Writer and director J. J. Abrams gets loads of mileage out of the friendships between the boys and in particular out of Joe’s (Courtney) budding romance with the group’s only girl, Alice, played by Dakota Fanning’s younger sister Elle. She is excellent. I’m not sure if it’s because of or in spite of the fact she is the only female in the crew, but her performance really stands out. Abrams also uses a certain old school trick to perfection. He doesn’t fully reveal his monster until late in the proceedings. It’s fitting that Steven Spielberg is this film’s producer. He used this sleight of hand better than anyone in the original Jaws. As it does there, in Super 8 it adds a layer of mystery and makes the creature scarier than he would otherwise be.

On the flipside, those things that make Super 8 work, hold it back a bit. The whole thing feels extremely derivative. It’s very reminiscent of lots of movies that were made within a few years of when this one is set: The Goonies, Monster Squad, Stand by Me, The Sandlot, etc. Of course, even that list would not be complete without including E. T. Nearly every element of S8 seems to come from one of those movies, including the totally rushed and botched ending. That portion of our feature is a truncated version of one of those others that doesn’t quite feel right. Just so you don’t go thinking it’s all about the oldies, there is a healthy dose of Cloverfield thrown in, too.

What rescues S8 is that Abrams does a masterful job telling his tale. We feel for the kids involved and identify with them even as they decide to do some incredibly foolish things in hopes of saving the day. Visually, it works magic in the opposite way of most movies. We’re far more tantalized by what we don’t see. It’s lack of originality likely won’t be apparent to young’uns or anyone else who hasn’t seen those other movies I’ve mentioned. To them, it will be a breath of fresh air. To me, it’s the answer to the question “what if Spielberg had directed Cloverfield back in the 80s?” It’s pretty much what it sounds like: E. T. without the Reese’s Pieces, glowing index finger or sunny disposition.

MY SCORE: 7/10

dell71 · Jun 8, 2012

Good Deeds
Directed by Tyler Perry.
2012. Rated PG-13, 110 minutes.
Cast:
Tyler Perry
Thandie Newton
Gabrielle Union
Brian White
Phylicia Rashad
Eddie Cibrian
Jordenn Thompson
Beverly Johnson
Rebecca Romijn
Jamie Kennedy

Life is perfect for Wesley Deeds (Perry), or so it seems. He’s the CEO of a very successful company, drives a Porsche and is the apple of his mother’s eye. He’s also engaged to the beautiful Natalie (Union). The only hiccups are he works long hours and his brother Walter (White) is a jerk, feeling slighted by their deceased father who willed Wesley the company’s top spot. For Lindsey (Newton), things aren’t going quite so well. She’s the single mom of a six year old girl. Early on, they get evicted from their apartment. She can’t afford to pay rent because the IRS is garnishing her wages. With no other options, Lindsey and her daughter sleep in their car. That is, they sleep there after mom’s shift as a night janitor. Why yes, silly, she works for Wesley’s company. And yes, she finds herself cleaning his office while he’s there working late. If you don’t know where this is going you should crawl out from under your rock every once in a while.

In what’s become a pattern for writer, director and, in this case, leading man Tyler Perry, in between Madea movies he doesn’t go for laughs. It’s a welcome development, a much needed reprieve for those of us who’ve grown to despise the loud-mouthed, pistol-packin’ grandma. People who love her tend to also love anything Perry does so no problems on that front, either. Both sides might be pleasantly surprised that this is just a plain ol’ fashioned boy meets girl. As such, Good Deeds plays it totally straight. There are no extraneous buffoons hanging around nor a collection of outwardly evil men to get us all riled up. For the most part, this film is populated by “just” people.

As a romance, Good Deeds is a lukewarm affair. It plays things safe to the point of unrelenting predictability. The irony is that Wesley's fiancee spends much of the movie lamenting him for the same thing, being bland with all the spontaneity of clockwork. For both the movie and the character, our leading man is much the blame. One of Perry's great strengths is getting strong performances from his cast. However, the one actor he has the most trouble with is himself. As Madea, or anyone which requires him to physically disappear into them as much as possible, he's a bundle of hyperkinetic energy. With his own face in plain view he's exceedingly bland. His Wesley Deeds is no exception. Unfortunately, this means he doesn't generate any sparks with either Union or Newton. It doesn't help that the character is written as an impossibly good person. There is no edge to him whatsoever. His inevitable break-up is of the most cordial kind imaginable. Even his one "rebellious" fantasy is Mother Teresa-esque.

The movie is at its most passionate when it turns its eye toward the subplot of Walter being mad at the world, including his own mother played by a steely-eyed Phylicia Rashad. Too bad these are both completely one dimensional characters with a story that goes nowhere. However, they do provide us with plenty of melodramatic fireworks whenever they share a scene. White's is an angry, guttural performance of material that doesn't allow him to be anything more.

Whenever our focus is on Mr. Deeds (yes, I'm fully aware of what I did, there) and the triangle that forms around him, we simply barrel downhill until we reach the inevitable conclusion. It does so in a mostly unremarkable fashion that makes this hard to love, or hate. There are some touching scenes involving Wesley, Lindsey and her daughter Ariel (Thompson). There are some horrible scenes and transitions where things just happen too easily. However, the bulk of it is merely average.

MY SCORE: 5/10

dell71 · Jun 8, 2012

Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill!
Directed by Russ Meyer.
1965. Not Rated, 83 minutes.
Cast:
Tura Satana
Haji
Lori Williams
Sue Bernard
Stuart Lancaster
Dennis Busch
Paul Trinka
Ray Barlow

The title Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill! doesn’t inspire thoughts of artsy fartsy cinema. I didn’t pop this in expecting a thoughtful examination of the human condition. If the title weren’t enough of a hint, it is a Russ Meyer film, after all. Entertaining junk is what I wanted. Entertaining junk is what I got. By the way, when I say “pop this in” I mean into the VCR. Couldn’t even find the darned thing on DVD or on the internet.

For those unaware, Russ Meyer is pretty much the father of the sexploitation flick, directing over 20 such movies in his career. They’re cheap, campy and exploitive. However, there is a certain passion that bleeds through the craziness. He wrote, directed and produced all of his own movies which were made on shoestring budgets. Pretty clearly, every warped moment leapt from the confines of his brain and plastered themselves on film. Yes, they objectify women. However, it’s atypical of the what that implies. In Meyer’s work, that generally means portraying the female gender as dominant, supremely confident and comfortable in their own skin. These are big, bad broads.

Big is a term that can be used to describe Meyer’s artistic vision. That vision and its description absolutely includes breasts with the emphasis on big. He’s obsessed with them. FPKK is nothing, if not a barely restrained display of that obsession. It’s only restrained at all because of when it was made and what he was trying to do. In 1965, nudity was impermissible if you wanted to have your movie seen by a “respectable” audience. Indeed, Meyer wanted to expand beyond the nudie circuit of which he was a star auteur. Therefore, in place of all-out nakedness we get lower than low cut, tighter than tight tops hosting a jiggle-fest of epic porportions.

Handling a rather healthy chunk of the jiggling is Tura Satana as our most voluptuous villain Varla. If you ever have the chance read up a bit on Ms. Satana. As outlandish as her character is, her life seems to have been even more so. Allegedly, she survived a gang-rape at a very young age, learned martial arts and exacted revenge on her tormentors. She worked as a burlesque dancer at like 14, became involved with Elvis Presley at some point and turned down his marriage proposal. Trust me, I’m only skimming the surface. There’s lots more. One look at her outfit here informs us it must’ve taken an act of God for her not to have a massive flop-out every time she made a sudden move. By sudden I mean those unexpected things us humans do, like breathing. And I do mean massive in the most literal sense of the word.

The second most buxom babe is Rosie, played by the singularly named Haji. Finally, there’s Lori Williams as Billie. She doesn’t have nearly the bra size of her two co-stars but ably depicts another of Meyer’s fetishes. She has the kind of curves we normally only see on cartoon characters. By the way, she also had a relationship with Elvis. I guess it really is good to be the king.

Our three ladies are a trio of vicious vixens. By night, they’re go-go dancers. By day they drive fast, yell at each other and have the occasional catfight. In between all this, some square and his girlfriend invade their space. One thing leads to another and the square ends up in a fistfight with Varla. Bad move. She literally kills him with her bare breasts, um – I mean hands. The vivacious villains then kidnap the girlfriend since she’s the only witness and sorta go on the run. They wind up at the secluded house of a dirty old paraplegic after hearing from a gas station attendant that the man has a bunch of cash stashed on the property. The man lives with his two sons, one of whom is mentally challenged, to say the least. This little bit of info comes after one of the best exchanges in cinematic history. The attendant is leaning into Varla’s car window, telling her how he wants to get away and “see America” while staring intently at her cleavage. She snaps at him, “You won’t find it down there, Columbus!”

The story is only mildly interesting and unintentionally funny in spots. It’s the sexual innuendo filled dialogue and outrageousness of the situation that keeps us locked in for much of the runtime. That and the jiggling, of course. The conduit for both is the insanely and deliciously over the top performance by Satana. She snarls and screams nearly every one of her lines, barking orders and double entendres alike. All the while her boobs defy the laws of physics by bouncing around like basketballs but somehow not falling out of her barely there blouse. Alas, I’ve said too much. I’ll sum it up by saying it’s so bad, it’s awesome!

MY SCORE: -10/10

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/rgWoPFX1Sz0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

St. Francisco · Jun 8, 2012

St. Francisco said:
Put Ink on your list Dell, I'd like to see your review of it.

It's been 18 months, Dell...18 months.

j.hen · Jun 8, 2012

AND SOLARIS !!

Houston · Jun 8, 2012

The original or remake?

dell71 · Jun 9, 2012

Thanks for the reminders.

j.hen · Jun 9, 2012

Houston said:
The original or remake?

dell71 · Jun 10, 2012

Super
Directed by James Gunn.
2011. Rated R, 96 minutes.
Cast:
Rainn Wilson
Ellen Page
Liv Tyler
Kevin Bacon
Gregg Henry
Michael Rooker
Nathan Fillion
Don Mac
Andre Royo
Sean Gunn
Linda Cordellini

Meet Frank (Wilson), a fry-cook. We get the impression he didn’t have a lot of friends growing up, didn’t get out much and was the butt of the jokes when he did. We can tell there was a time when he thought he’d never find a woman that would marry him. Yet, here he is married to Sarah who is every bit as beautiful as Liv Tyler. No wonder he counts the second they tied the knot as one of his life’s few perfect moments. Sadly, his happiness is fleeting. He comes home one day to discover her and all of her things gone. After asking God what he must do to win her back, he has a vision suggesting he become a superhero. This is how The Crimson Bolt is born.

Frank dons the costume he’s made for himself and hits the streets looking for villains to thwart. Shortly, he realizes that if he’s going to fight crime he better get a weapon. He also needs to brush up on his new craft and finds himself frequenting a comic book shop with an enthusiastic young female clerk named Libby (Page). She informs him of what certain superheroes are and are not capable of since he’s obviously not into comics. He uses this information to decide on his weapon of choice: a pipe wrench. With that, he takes the city by storm, clubbing anyone he thinks is involved in a crime. Eventually, Libby gets her own costume and becomes his overeager sidekick Boltie.

Director James Gunn makes sure Super is never dull, but certainly challenging to watch. It’s filled to the brim with bizarre and graphic imagery, dark to the point of being morbid humor and questionable morality. By questionable I mean there really is no problem that can’t be solved by a wrench to the face. Our hero is rendered little more than a violent sociopath. However, this seems to be the intent. He is supposed to be what we wish we were: unrestrained in our dealings with those we perceive to be doing wrong. It works to an extent. The problem is he does some things that are repulsive even to us. What’s supposed to endear him to us is his awkwardness, both as a superhero and in regular life. When he’s in costume this works fine. Out of costume, it’s uncomfortable to witness.

As I said though, this is dark comedy. It is not to be taken too seriously or literally. It’s a fantasy for us everyday weaklings. At this, Super succeeds. We can tell this is all tongue-in-cheek. As uneasy as it may make us feel, there are laughs to be had. For instance, right before one of his disturbing outbursts we can’t help but chuckle as he rushes off to his car for a not so quick change into costume in broad daylight.

Super does a number of things well. However, it shies away from really examining our hero’s behavior. It starts down the very Batman-esque path of have the Crimson Bolt hunted as a criminal. With Frank’s social awkwardness and conviction that he’s doing the right thing there are potentially some very dark depths to be mined. Alas, this storyline gets abandoned to keep the sappy ending intact. It leaves Super very uneven, a bit of a mess. The film doesn’t think that matters. It simply wants to be like the first Spiderman movie and so it is. Like that one, this is really all about a girl.

MY SCORE: 5.5/10

dell71 · Jun 20, 2012

Arthur
Directed by Jason Winer.
2011. Rated PG-13, 110 minutes.
Cast:
Russell Brand
Helen Mirren
Jennifer Garner
Greta Gerwig
Geraldine James
Luis Guzmán
Nick Nolte
Murphy Guyer
Evander Holyfield

Arthur (Brand) is a fabulously wealthy alcoholic party-boy who fails to comprehend most things beyond what would be expected of a toddler. In fact, he’s still cared for by his nanny Hobson (Mirren). Tired of the exploits that keep landing him on the front page of the newspaper and embarrassing the family, and more importantly its business, his mother mandates that he mary the company’s respectable exec Susan (Garner) and settle down. If he doesn’t he will be completely cut off from the family fortune. Of course, he doesn’t particularly like Susan. To complicate matters even further, he’s become smitten with Naomi (Gerwig), a poor girl who scrapes by giving illegal tours of Grand Central Station to tourists. Yes, this is a remake of the beloved 1981 hit starring Dudley Moore.

In the title role, Russell Brand does the usual Russell Brand schtick. His Arthur is hardly distinguishable from his Aldous Snow, his character in both Get Him to the Greek and Forgetting Sarah Marshall. If you’re a fan of his, this is great. If you’re not, then it’s not. In either case, the movie constructed around him isn’t as good as either of those. Arthur just drags us down a road we’ve traversed many times. It’s that road where all the rich people are cold and calculating, possibly evil, while all of the poor are virtuous and loyal, almost angelic. Even this can work if the story is told in an interesting manner and/or we’re given round characters we feel empathy for. Such was the case with the original, unless nostalgia is getting the best of me. These people are cardboard cutouts of characters in other crappy movies who were caricatures to begin with. It all adds up to us not caring one iota about what happens to them because we’ve already seen them in other movies and didn’t particularly care for them, then.

Whatever the material’s shortcomings, the cast is game. While Brand is vigorously doing Brand, Jennifer Garner is feverishly working the dominatrix in a business suit angle, complete with riding whip. Either I’m jaded by years of seeing her as the good girl or she doesn’t have too many evil bones in her body, so I can’t quite buy it. Still, the effort is there. Helen Mirren gives her character dignity, sincerity and depth beyond the lines she speaks. It’s a typically wonderful performance from her. Greta Gerwig as Naomi is the exception. For pretty much the entire time she’s on screen her eyes are big as saucers and she can’t remove the perma-grin. Regardless of context, most of her lines come across as if she’s saying “Gee Willikers Arthur, that was neat!” Of course, during her sad scenes she’s worse. I could “see” her acting. That’s never a good thing.

Arthur plays out exactly as it is set up to right from the start. It’s a straight-forward entry into the ever-expanding romantic comedy genre. That might be okay if it were funnier. This is the major difference between this and the original. That one has more laughs. Most of the jokes here don’t quite work. Aside from the novel appearance of a not-so-heroic Batman and Robin plus two by the gaudiest of all Batmobiles, our new Arthur fails to stand out from the crowd.

MY SCORE: 4.5/10

Houston · Jun 21, 2012

jfhennedy said:

Months ago I read a Another Earth review that name dropped the original Solais, been wanting to see it since. No interest in the remake though.

dell71 · Jun 23, 2012

Act of Valor
Directed by Mike McCoy, Scott Waugh.
2012. Rated R, 110 minutes.
Cast:
Roselyn Sanchez
Alex Veadov
Jason Cottle
Nestor Serrano
Emilio Rivera
Ailsa Marshall
Gonzalo Menendez
U.S. Navy SEALs
U.S. Navy Special Warfare Combatant Crewmen

Act of Valor is billed as a movie made by U.S. Navy SEALs for U.S. Navy SEALs. The rest of us can either take it or leave it. I have a feeling that anyone into action and/or war flicks will take it. Our tale follows a team of SEALs whose mission is to rescue undercover CIA agent Lisa Morales (Sanchez). She’s been kidnapped after her cover is apparently blown by Cristo (Veadov), the international drug dealer she’s been investigating. Pretty quickly, it’s discovered that this is merely the tip of the iceberg. Unsurprisingly, our heroes find themselves efforting to stop a major terrorist plot with eyes on multiple locations within the United States. Before any of this happens, frontline defenders of the free world do what they must. They have a get-together at the beach to say goodbye to their loved ones, maybe even confide in one another in hopes of resolving any last minute personal issues. For Lt. Rorke, the team’s leader ,it’s an especially difficult time to be deployed. His wife is expecting their first child. He doesn’t want anyone to know, but his bestest buddy Chief Dave is a bit of a blabbermouth. Everyone knows.

With that, we’re on to the part of the movie that keeps us on the edge of our seats: watching the SEALs in what becomes a global operation to end a threat against us, here at home. This isn’t Rambo or Commando impossibly and singlehandedly mowing down hundreds of bad guys and dropping corny one-liners. This is a team of highly trained seamen who are excellent at what they do, but will take help whenever they can get it. The action scenes feel real. We see them implementing their training. Save for possibly one moment involving an RPG, there are no superhuman feats. It helps maintain tension during these sequences. Our sense of danger is palpable. If there is a drawback, it’s that the first person shooter angle is overused. It comes across gimmicky and not as clear as it needs to be.

Wisely, there aren’t endless soliloquys of exposition. Explanations are given in a succinct, no-frills fashion. It’s basically, “This is what we know and that is where you’re going. Go get ‘em, boys!” The one piece of story AoV does use lots of words on is what’s going on with Lt. Rorke. This is repeatedly hammered into our head to ensure our proper response at the end. The writers don’t seem to understand that it doesn’t need to be so heavy-handed. Trust me, we get it. With a little less time on this, the ending would still have the same effect. Less time here would also benefit the performers. Lt. Rorke and Chief Dave get most of the lines among the good guys. Believe me, neither is in line for an Oscar. A Razzie, maybe.

AoV manages to overcome its flaws to deliver a movie that’s exhilarating, sad and controversial. It entertains, but not merely for entertainment’s sake. It doesn’t dwell on the rights and wrongs of war. Instead, it just presents us with the reality of these men’s lives. However, in doing so it may come across as pure propaganda and more than a bit militaristic. The actual U.S. Navy is said to look upon this as a recruitment tool. That said, the action still carries the day. Narratively speaking it’s average or less in comparison to other action flicks. In terms of combat scenes, it’s much more.

MY SCORE: 6.5/10

Dell's Good, Bad & Ugly Movie Reviews

Well-known member

Enter Sandman

&#9604;&#9608;&#9600; &#9608;&#9644;&#9608; &#9608

Enter Sandman

&#9604;&#9608;&#9600; &#9608;&#9644;&#9608; &#9608

Enter Sandman

Tiote!

Enter Sandman

Enter Sandman

Enter Sandman

Enter Sandman

45-35 Never Forget

Self Care

Back home

Enter Sandman

Self Care

Enter Sandman

Enter Sandman

Back home

Enter Sandman

Similar threads

▄█▀ █▬█ &#9608

▄█▀ █▬█ &#9608