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.
Reviews67
shiftyeyeddog's rating
Ladies and Gentlemen, we have a new winner for WORST film of 2008.
Where to start? The look? It's easy to compare its style to Sin City based on its spot-color, cgi-background visuals. But it didn't work for that movie, and it's even less worthwhile here. Between the annoying look and the HORRIBLE writing, I don't know if they worked in the graphic novel, but it damn sure don't here. There is such a thing as too faithful to source material. The acting? A new low for every actor involved, especially Scarlett Johannson - she never could act, but is worse here than ever. I have to think that every actor in it looks at the finished film and is simply embarrassed. But the worst of the worst here - the biggest share of the blame - is writer/director Frank Miller. He manages to fail at every imaginable aspect of the film. Stick to the comic medium, Frank. You're first directorial effort is officially a steaming pile of crap and a disaster of epic proportions.
Where to start? The look? It's easy to compare its style to Sin City based on its spot-color, cgi-background visuals. But it didn't work for that movie, and it's even less worthwhile here. Between the annoying look and the HORRIBLE writing, I don't know if they worked in the graphic novel, but it damn sure don't here. There is such a thing as too faithful to source material. The acting? A new low for every actor involved, especially Scarlett Johannson - she never could act, but is worse here than ever. I have to think that every actor in it looks at the finished film and is simply embarrassed. But the worst of the worst here - the biggest share of the blame - is writer/director Frank Miller. He manages to fail at every imaginable aspect of the film. Stick to the comic medium, Frank. You're first directorial effort is officially a steaming pile of crap and a disaster of epic proportions.
Making a direct sequel to Casino Royale was the biggest mistake. Bond has never had them, and Ian Fleming didn't write it. Why mess with a proved formula? But they did, and the result is one of the more mediocre Bond films in recent years, and one that feels short and somewhat unsatisfying.
Quantum of Solace is a curious thing. All the pieces are there, but it simply never feels like James Bond. The villain is bland and unthreatening. The women are bland. And aside from one or two decent sequences, even much of the ACTION often feels hollow. ...and it doesn't help that Bond himself mopes his way through the entire film.
Marc Forster, director of "Monster's Ball", "Finding Neverland", and the UNWATCHABLE "Stay", just doesn't know how to handle action, and he tries to make up for it with chaos. But while some movies like the Bourne series use the so-called "shaky-cam" style effectively, Forster's is closer to the "what the hell is going on" version seen in films like Transformers. No, Forster is usually more at home with angsty, conflicted character pieces, but even the characters aren't particularly satisfying.
I do love Daniel Craig as Bond, and he does his best here, but it's no Casino Royale. And while defenders say "this is just like the second part of Royale", that doesn't excuse its deficiencies; it only supports the idea that they'd be better off sticking to stand-alone stories and getting back to the Bond we know and love.
Quantum of Solace is a curious thing. All the pieces are there, but it simply never feels like James Bond. The villain is bland and unthreatening. The women are bland. And aside from one or two decent sequences, even much of the ACTION often feels hollow. ...and it doesn't help that Bond himself mopes his way through the entire film.
Marc Forster, director of "Monster's Ball", "Finding Neverland", and the UNWATCHABLE "Stay", just doesn't know how to handle action, and he tries to make up for it with chaos. But while some movies like the Bourne series use the so-called "shaky-cam" style effectively, Forster's is closer to the "what the hell is going on" version seen in films like Transformers. No, Forster is usually more at home with angsty, conflicted character pieces, but even the characters aren't particularly satisfying.
I do love Daniel Craig as Bond, and he does his best here, but it's no Casino Royale. And while defenders say "this is just like the second part of Royale", that doesn't excuse its deficiencies; it only supports the idea that they'd be better off sticking to stand-alone stories and getting back to the Bond we know and love.
I had a bad feeling about this...
The reviews going in were overwhelmingly negative. The movie started, and it just felt odd to see the WB logo instead of 20th Century Fox. Then the strange altered Star Wars main title theme. Then in place of the traditional opening crawl of text, we get a visual synopsis of what's going on, complete with a voice-over straight out of WWII newsreels. But then the strangest thing happened: I absolutely LOVED this movie! This is the movie the first two prequels SHOULD have been. It's exciting, fast-paced, and feels perfectly in line with the spirit and fun of the original trilogy. I have to wonder if George Lucas was far more hands-off on this and let others have the majority of the control over writing, directing, etc., because it's a massive improvement over Lucas' recent efforts.
The animation itself is excellent. It's obviously going for a more stylistic look rather than trying for photorealism or Pixar-style perfection, and while I was wary at first (the faces and eyes for some reason remind me of "Team America"), I ended up really liking the style.
The musical score is done by Kevin Kiner, with only minimal use of the original themes by John Williams, and it is extraordinary. It sounds like a combination of Williams and Hans Zimmer, and to me that's like having a symphony jointly composed by Mozart and Beethoven. I actually stopped on the way home (at 11pm) to pick up the soundtrack. I can't even remember the last CD I bought, much less felt the need to get ASAP.
I am absolutely BAFFLED by the negative reviews this film is getting. I honestly don't know what flaws people are finding with it. Are they just jaded fans who feel betrayed by the prequel trilogy? I'm hearing people say this is the last straw - the nail in the coffin that's making them finally close the door on Star Wars for good. They say it doesn't even "feel" like Star Wars. Did we see the same movie? I could not feel more differently. After the prequels, though having their moments, tarnished the saga and even somewhat diminished my devotion for the originals, Clone Wars has completely restored my faith and excitement in the series. If they can keep this up, we're in for a long run of great stories.
I liked the Clone Wars (non-CG) cartoons that aired on Cartoon Network, but they absolutely pale in comparison to this new project. I cannot wait for the series to begin. This level of story, animation, action and fun on a weekly basis? I've never been so excited for a TV series
The reviews going in were overwhelmingly negative. The movie started, and it just felt odd to see the WB logo instead of 20th Century Fox. Then the strange altered Star Wars main title theme. Then in place of the traditional opening crawl of text, we get a visual synopsis of what's going on, complete with a voice-over straight out of WWII newsreels. But then the strangest thing happened: I absolutely LOVED this movie! This is the movie the first two prequels SHOULD have been. It's exciting, fast-paced, and feels perfectly in line with the spirit and fun of the original trilogy. I have to wonder if George Lucas was far more hands-off on this and let others have the majority of the control over writing, directing, etc., because it's a massive improvement over Lucas' recent efforts.
The animation itself is excellent. It's obviously going for a more stylistic look rather than trying for photorealism or Pixar-style perfection, and while I was wary at first (the faces and eyes for some reason remind me of "Team America"), I ended up really liking the style.
The musical score is done by Kevin Kiner, with only minimal use of the original themes by John Williams, and it is extraordinary. It sounds like a combination of Williams and Hans Zimmer, and to me that's like having a symphony jointly composed by Mozart and Beethoven. I actually stopped on the way home (at 11pm) to pick up the soundtrack. I can't even remember the last CD I bought, much less felt the need to get ASAP.
I am absolutely BAFFLED by the negative reviews this film is getting. I honestly don't know what flaws people are finding with it. Are they just jaded fans who feel betrayed by the prequel trilogy? I'm hearing people say this is the last straw - the nail in the coffin that's making them finally close the door on Star Wars for good. They say it doesn't even "feel" like Star Wars. Did we see the same movie? I could not feel more differently. After the prequels, though having their moments, tarnished the saga and even somewhat diminished my devotion for the originals, Clone Wars has completely restored my faith and excitement in the series. If they can keep this up, we're in for a long run of great stories.
I liked the Clone Wars (non-CG) cartoons that aired on Cartoon Network, but they absolutely pale in comparison to this new project. I cannot wait for the series to begin. This level of story, animation, action and fun on a weekly basis? I've never been so excited for a TV series