Motor Oil

Just as Aston Martin symbolizes James Bond, this Aston Martin in particular pretty much sums up what i thought of Quantum of Solace:

Quantum of Solace

Not exactly what i had expected. This is perhaps the first review that gets less than 3 out of 5 stars from me.

What is it:

James Bond - The Quantum of Solace is the 22nd 007 Movie. It promises to be a relaunch of Casino Royale, continuing the story. And continue it does; as soon as the movie starts, it picks up right where it left off, Bond running from henchmen, with Mr. White in the boot of the car. Right into the action.

What Makes it Great:

Intense Action Scenes. This is probably the movie's strongest point. At least 50% of the movie time was spent in some sort of a gunfight.

and jeez. i really can't think of anything else. its that bad.

i guess the motor oil. haha. you'll have to watch it for that.

Why it Sucks:

The plot was straightforward and predictable. I expected some twist somewhere to add another 30-45 minutes to the show, but no. everything went as smooth and as plain as butter. it only lasted 1 hour 45 minutes. which should say something about the content.

The Sunday Times review noted that "following Casino Royale was never going to be easy, but the director Marc Forster has brought the brand’s successful relaunch crashing back to earth — with a yawn"; the screenplay "is at times incomprehensible" and the casting "is a mess." The review concludes that "Bond has been stripped of his iconic status. He no longer represents anything particularly British, or even modern. In place of glamour, we get a spurious grit; instead of style, we get product placement; in place of fantasy, we get a redundant and silly realism."

There really was no point. here. i'm going to type out the movie's plot:

[Begin Spoilers]Bond kills alot of people.[End Spoilers]

Another thing i didn't like of the movie was the utter lack of bond-ness. No cool gadgets, the aston martin gets like 90 seconds of screen time, before being utterly wrecked. there's no smooth deceit and spy action. And most shocking of all, nobody betrays bond.

The only real bond to bond-girl relationship in the movie is Bond and M. which is quite sad really. and no. craig doesn't screw judi.

My Rating:


Thats it. this room is cold. lol. okay yeah thats all i'm giving it. its disappointing. i expected alot more from this movie. and a bond movie should never disappoint.

Should You Watch It:

No. I wouldn't recommend that you do, there's nothing that sets this bond movie apart from another lowbit action movie. If you're looking for a mindbending plot, smooth sleek bondness, sexy aston martins and ingenious improvisation, this is not going to satisfy.

Where You Can Watch It:

Any Cinema should have it, so that's your problem solved. [jeezus this room is cold]

Alike

I SWEAR THEY LOOK ALIKE

DAVID COULTHARD:


DAVID HASSELHOFF:


DAVID COULTHARD: [ignore cheeks. i mean seriously, wtf.]


DAVID HASSELHOFF:




...just saying.

Jack Ass

Get this. you guys know jackass right? i just watched Jackass 2.0 last night. it was uh. nice. not gonna do a full review, just some thoughts i had on it.

so yeah. it was fairly disgusting, it was fairly interesting, but it was fucking funny. hahaha. it will make an awesome party movie. imagine that. 10 drunk teens watching other drunk people do stupid, painful, humiliating stuff. imagine the chaos.

so yeah. anyway after which i did some research into the show [i do that after every movie] and i found out an interesting tidbit. get this. apparantly this guy sued jackass for plaigiarism. he claims that jackass stole his name and used it for their own profit. guess what his name was.

Jack Ass.

haha. he had it changed because he drunk drived and got someone killed i think. can't remember the details. so he changed his name to Jack Ass. i'd laugh but thats just mean.

Point of View

So I just caught this movie, really awesome piece of work. its kinda like.
uh.
i don't know. but its novel and interesting.

Vantage Point

hm, re-reading that. the picture is somewhat anti-climatic. but hey, it was good enough to leave me gasping for air, I'm sure it can afford to look frumpy. okay. how am i gonna review this. seem familiar? read back to my first review if you don't get it.

WHAT IS IT:

Okay lets start the drill. What it is: this movie is a movie. it is a moving picture. its from columbia pictures, and its listed as a mystery thriller. its a big who dunnit with twists and turns everywhere you go.

It stars Dennis Quaid, Matthew Fox, Forest Whitaker with Sigourney Weaver, Édgar Ramírez and William Hurt, and it was released on February 22nd, 2008. i got the dvd, so yeah.

WHY ITS GREAT:

okay this is actually going to be pretty tough to do. don't want to ruin anything. alot of other reviews out there give away the narrative feature of the movie, which i think would be better kept secret, so here i'm leaving it as a spoiler. those who watched the movie will know what i mean. anyway. the movie is great. It tells a very elaborate story, and leaves the audience guessing. who did that? what did he see? did i see something? and the occasional OMG I CAN'T BELIEVE THAT JUST HAPPENED WHOAAAAUHGEHUH!

the narrtive technique involves repetition, and while most movies don't pull it off well, and end up creating a very boring and mundane sequence, this movie pulls it off perfectly. each repetition is perfect and refreshing. the same oomph you feel when you see it the first time is the same each time you see it. [that doesn't mean you'll watch the movie over and over... maybe once more, when you know exactly what happens.]

Every aspect is well thought out, and the combined skill of pete travis [director] and barry levy [writer] leads to a very intense, whodunnit packed with more than enough high octane action.

WHY IT SUCKS:

okay so the suck part. i've been through alot of reviews online to give you as much coverage as possible, but the thing i noticed is that. every review is so different. what one review thinks is good, another review thinks its bad. i guess that'll be left to your own judgement. its kind of like cloverfield. you either love it or hate it.

personally, i believe its shortcomings mainly lie in the liberties the screenplay takes to 'enhance' the viewing experience. sure, surviving a car accident here or there is okay, but gee, sometimes the guy just can't die. some points get a tad too far fetched, and the action sequences are confusing. some of them just aren't good enough and i find myself thinking can you stop shooting the air around that guy and get on with the story? STOP BEATING HIM I WANT TO KNOW WHAT HAPPENS NEXT. yeah.

okay. for your benefit, i'm going to quote one other review i kind of agree on. Michael Phillips, of the Chicago Tribune said of Vantage Point and Stuart Baird, "Editor Stuart Baird must've been paid by the cut: Simple five-second action beats are often sliced into three or four separate, panicky shots."

true, but then again, fast shots lead to the tension. [sigh, azhar.] but i guess he may have over did it abit. [oh look! its person a! no wait now its person b, oh now woman c, wait back to person a, oh is that person b? omg explosion is that a plane? omg ambulance?! pineapple???]

AND ONE MORE THING:

PRODUCT PLACEMENT. SONY! EVERYWHERE! the laptops, the camera, the phones. EVERYWHERE. hahahaha

SHOULD YOU GET IT?

hmm. lets see. get it only if you are receptive to new things. its a very subjective thing, from what i observed. everyone around me seems to like it, including me, so i guess, if you like the stuff you think i like, go for it.

MY RATING:

this is something everyone who can should try. its not as extreme as cloverfield, but like cloverfield, you should at least experience it once.

SO WHERE CAN YOU GET IT?

well. DVD store near you. of course maybe also your occasional friend who rips dvds and passes them around the people around him/her. everyone has one of those. if you have lots of friends but none of them rips dvds and passes them around, then you must that friend.

Cloverfield

we watched a movie recently. a good movie. an extreme movie. we bought their popcorn combo. they gave me a book. it was:



its a notebook, but anyway..

CLOVERFIELD

Produced by J. J. Abrams

WHAT IS IT:

Cloverfield is a movie. but i think we want to know more about why its seems to be so big. see, first of all, Cloverfield is produced by bad robot. you know what bad robot is famous for? yup. lost. the series. remember that awesome monster from lost that kept you guessing? now. lets take the people who created that, and ask them to make a monster movie. what do you get? cloverfield.

WHY ITS GREAT:

Its unique. the entire movie is shot from the view point of a camcorder. it starts off with this guy recording testimonials for rob, who is leaving town for business soon. then it goes awry, and the camera is brought everywhere, covering the incident. the view point makes everything alittle more believeable, and is also very unique, makes you feel like you are really there. it offsets the otherwise cliche story and thrills.

WHY IT SUCKED:

The story, very predictable. some things, too unbelievable. the camera angle, when they ran, everything shakes, so motion sickness is a problem. the scares also are very standard monster in the closet type. so yeah.

SHOULD I WATCH IT?

yes, yes you should. while the story and stuffs may not be awesome, the camera pov is new and interesting to experience.watch it once. you either really hate it, or really love it.

MY RATING:

I give it 4 out of 5 stars because i loved it. i wasnt affected by the motion sickness problem, so yeah.

i'm not gonna put in a where can i etc, because its a movie. go to a cinema. i dont need to tell you that. lol. okay. next review, aerosmith's album. i think i'll do it tomorrow. hey, i woke up at 4 this morning, cut me some slack. really. i'll do it tomorrow.