Filmfan 2
Posts: 972
Joined: 30/9/2005
|
Unadulterated bullshit, quite frankly.
Why? Why do I keep punishing myself by going to see movies directed by McG? The man may have some visual flare every so often, but for the most part he's a talentless hack whose work makes me wonder why he is continuously allowed to run riot with large budgets. Granted, the kinds of projects he generally helms appeal to 15 year old boys and that brings in the benjamins, so I suppose it isn't really that unclear at all.
I hold my hand up in shame and admit that I didn't see just one Charlie's Angels movie at the cinema, I saw them both. In my defense, this was at a time when I generally saw pretty much everything going (and before cinema prices got stupid) and I hated them even then. I quickly realised after the second dog turd of a movie in that franchise that McG was a movie director up to no good, and that I should be wary of whatever snake oil he next tried to sell the general public. Things bubbled along nicely I didn't really think of him again until Terminator 4 popped up the horizon, and I gave in. I'll admit that whilst that movie is a poor relation to the first two films, I enjoyed it to a degree. So with my defenses lowered and a trip to the cinema throwing up nothing new that I hadn't seen except this movie, I made my into the auditorium and settled down to what turned out to be the final straw in my relationship with McG.
To put in bluntly, the film is a fucking mess. The plot is so thin that it barely fills up its running time, and the pacing is all over the place. Some of the tonal changes from one scene to the next made me sigh, and not in a good way. The entire point of the plot seems to exist purely to lurch from one oh-so-hilarious skit to the next, with the bad guy seemingly thrown in to add some badly needed glue to a narrative that was coming apart at the seems.
The one redeeming feature of the movie is the performances from the cast; they are what gives this film any kind of credibility, and one can only assume that this film looked better at the script stage, or fat cheques were thrown about to get likes of Tom Hardy on-board for this. Admittedly there were a few funny scenes, the highlight for me being that thumbs up that Hardy pulls after shooting that Dart at his partner, but the rest was pretty tired; and don't get me started on that character who was Reese Witherspoon's BFF - if she was meant to be some kind of hilarious counterfoil to Witherspoon's thoughts on the two guys, with her oh-so-daring-did-she-really-say-that commentary, it failed miserably. She's one of cinema's worst creations for a while now.
So that's it, no more McG movies for me. I thought he'd maybe changed, learned from his past mistakes, but it seems not. This is a prime example of the kind of moronic drivel that he specialises in, and it's definitely got to be in the running for one of the worst movies of the year come December. I know I might come off as having a sense of humour bypass, but I actually thought this might be OK going by the previews. Sadly, it wasn't.
1.5/5 (purely for Tom Hardy and Chris Pike).
< Message edited by Filmfan 2 -- 9/3/2012 7:14:54 PM >
_____________________________
I am not drinkin' any fuckin' Merlot!
"All I wanted me was a piece of cornbread, you motherfuckers!"
Defender of all things Batman Begins
|
Printable Version
This Means War - 
,thats my guess anyway.
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread