NYC, Central Park, 2010. Five young teenagers are violently assaulted. But they’re not your average teenagers… they’re prodigies. The trauma of the assault incites them to lash out against the world in a cold and calculating way. The five chillingly brilliant minds come together to concoct a perfect revenge. The only person aware of the pending doom is Jimbo Farrar, a sixth prodigy, who has gathered them. As long as he fights against his five counterparts with all his might, there’s hope for the world. But should he turn over to their side, it’s only a matter of time before a disaster of apocalyptic proportions ensues…
Cody C (kr) wrote: One of the worst movies I have ever seen dull, cheesy, jokes are horrible couldn't even laugh or smile once just a painful movie to watch
Bryan S (br) wrote: Disappointing Ron Howard film.
Isabella M (de) wrote: biasa aja filmnya hanya ost-nya saja yang menawan..
Cal (nl) wrote: Jarfe: "That's impossible, it can't be you..." Ryde: "It's me." As washed-up '80s action stars churn out an endless selection of below-par, low-budget, direct-to-DVD action flicks, you can at least admire them for their persistence. In recent years, Dolph Lundgren has demonstrated his competence as not only an actor but also a director. Following the astonishingly positive reception of his second directorial outing, The Mechanik (also known as The Russian Specialist), in 2005, Dolph went on to helm Missionary Man - this stylish, albeit unoriginal and mundane contemporary Western that pays tribute to such classics as High Plains Drifter and Pale Rider. It's your conventional "tough guy rides in to clean up a corrupt town" story, primarily following the DTD formula to the letter. On the cover/poster for Missionary Man Dolph Lundgren is heavily armed, there's an explosion in the background, and the tagline reads "No sin shall go unpunished" - judge the book by its cover, as what you see is pretty much what you get. The story is set on a Native American Indian reservation where a gang of sadistic palefaces rule through violence and corruption. An enigmatic stranger known only as Ryder (Lundgren), rolls into town with a Bible and a score to settle. Ryder's character is unmistakably established as being some sort of enigmatic badass after he drinks straight tequila (no salt, no lime) and reads various verses of the Bible. His business in town is to attend the funeral of an old acquaintance known as J.J., who had recently drowned. However, J.J.'s family refuse to believe his death was an accident, and blame malicious local oppressor John Reno (Tompkins) for the murder. Ryder - the tall, blonde-haired stranger - begins befriending members of the local Indian community, and causes problems for Reno when he defeats hired hands and interferes with his underhanded practises. Tensions rise between Reno and Ryder, and the possibilities for a violent showdown continue to elevate. Missionary Man is just a forgettable shoot-'em-up action romp, featuring an aging Dolph Lundgren taking on countless enemies (sometimes simultaneously) with unwavering efficiency. Dolph (who also co-wrote the script) unfortunately takes things far too seriously. The film aspires to be an incisive character study, but Dolph lacks the requisite skill as a writer, director and star to pull this off successfully. Dialogue is fairly humdrum, and clichs proliferate, not to mention the air of unreserved seriousness is never (purposely) breached. Silly events and corny dialogue unfortunately prompt derisory chortles. Some scenes do work, especially when the hulking Ryder (remaining nameless, in an ostensible homage to Clint Eastwood) demonstrates his ability as a fighter. The photography is also endlessly stylish (due to an error during the DVD mastering, the colours are washed-out, giving the film an almost mythical look). Nevertheless, the overall lack of unique action scenes (not to mention action scenes in general are in short supply, instead opting to develop a dreary congregation of characters) as well as noteworthy storytelling prevent Missionary Man from rising above the usual low standard for DTD action flicks. The cinematography is of a satisfactory standard. Adhering to the widespread plague of contemporary action flicks, the camera suffers an epileptic attack whenever an action scene takes place. Shaky cam syndrome does no wonders on the cinematography front, ultimately coming across as cheap and disorientating. However, cinematographer Bing Rao's work isn't a total dud. The first ten minutes in particular is intriguingly shot, using clever camera angles and (thanks to nice lighting) usually clouding Ryder in darkness. Elia Cmiral's music to complement the photography is, of course, atmospheric and effective. Even at 50 years old, Dolph Lundgren never fails as a badass. He certainly looks the part, donning an outfit extremely appropriate for his character. Ryder is a one-dimensional hero - i.e. he lacks a weighty back-story. What's missing is acceptable motivation and reasoning for his return to the town. Conveniently, Ryder had an altercation in the past with a few members of this quiet town and returns purely for vengeance-related reasons. But no explanation is offered regarding events that had previously transpired. An air of mystery surrounding the protagonist is usually a great decision, but at least a little motivation would've proved advantageous. The supporting cast is generally populated by little-known actors. There's a bunch of performances of questionable quality, but they're uniformly watchable at least. Matthew Tompkins appears to give it his all as the despicable John Reno. He's the proverbial genre villain - outwardly appealing, but shady and corrupt, and has plenty of hired guns on standby to unleash upon the hero. Missionary Man is a clear homage to the Westerns of old, communicating a contemporary version of a story wherein a stranger rides into town to save the day. Instead of horses, they ride motorcycles (at one stage Reno even tells Ryder to leave town on his "iron horse"). This isn't a necessarily bad movie...it's just a familiar DTD movie. Innovative this is not. However Dolph's religious one man army shtick is eye-catching, pairing a mainly silent performance with a charismatic swagger (the kind you generally don't witness in a mindless production like this). The only true flaws are a handful of shaky performances, the indiscriminate use of slow motion, and the fact it's bereft of anything truly worthwhile or memorable. For your basic DTD film, this isn't a total waste. The display of blood and guts is occasionally quite graphic (therefore enjoyable), and it offers Dolph Lundgren drinking tequila, riding a motorcycle and kicking ass. Let's face it: it's why you paid the money to see it in the first place.
Eric S (ag) wrote: Awe such a great story. Has the makings of a LOGO Gay Sex in the City series!! And that Derek Magyar must be Channing Tatum's brother!?
Vadim D (ag) wrote: This has vanity project written all over it, and while that's not always a bad thing, Spacey's casting as Bobby Darin, although well acted, is completely off the mark. Unfortunately, it's too distracting to make the movie work, even though the film isn't half bad.
Lane Z (us) wrote: Since I didn't get a chance to review 'The Departed' back in 2006 due to the fact I wasn't reviewing movies then, I decided, why not watch the original it was based on? Infernal Affairs came out a few years before The Departed, and it's almost a mirror copy of what Martin Scorcese did. In fact, you could say the combination of TWO directors is better than the ONE the American version had.Instead of an overlong three-hour movie, here we have a nice, tight hour and forty minutes. The cuts are quicker. The dialogue is more focused and on the path. Sure, the American version has the budget and the acting to put it over the top, but let's not forget the stellar work Andy Lau and Tony Leung have done both in Chinese films and Chinese films made for American audiences like House of Flying Daggers or Hero, respectively.While the same twists and turns emerge, having watched The Departed first and then Infernal Affairs second actually makes you want to go back and rewatch the former just to see the small nuances between the two.You can't go wrong with either. In fact, you should spend the time to watch both.
Daniel Y (au) wrote: Cars is a visually dazzling Pixar movie that has a bit more meaning in the visuals than style and overall story. But, don't let that fool you, because it still packs a big enough punch that is able to work even if some of it's comedy doesn't work and is forced at some moments and moments in general and characters, more towards Mater since he is voiced by Larry the Cable Guy but luckily they have some heart felt stuff for him to say that makes it work just enough to the point where you can either tolerate him or like him, depenfing on what type of person you are. But, all in all Cars is an enjoyable movie.
Adam S (kr) wrote: "Fierce Creatures" acts as John Cleese's follow-up to the smash comedy "A Fish Called Wanda", and many of the elements are still there (notably the acting talents of Cleese, Jamie Lee Curtis, Kevin Kline and Michael Palin) but it feels slightly less fresh this time around, although that certainly doesn't preclude it from being a very funny film.Kline is once again the stand-out actor from amongst the foursome, with his dual role as an American heir to a company, and his inexplicably New Zealander father (an obvious parody of Australian mogul Rupert Murdoch). And, also like "Wanda", not enough praise is given to Palin's role as a fast-talking zookeeper with a fondness for tarantulas.Despite all this, there's no ultimately iconic scene, like the shooting of the dogs/John Cleese speaking Russian while naked/Michael Palin with chips up his nose scenes from Wanda. There are, however, nods to previous works of Cleese, including Cleese accidentally calling Curtis "Wanda", and Monty Python references (a spectator at a sea lion show was described as having "beautiful plumage", and John Cleese's daughter utters the line "It's only a flesh wound")Also appearing are comedy legend Ronnie Corbett, and in the background, Jack Davenport makes his screen debut.A fun movie, but nothing on Cleese's usual standard.
Tridib s (gb) wrote: I want to download it
Daisy M (it) wrote: The story relates what can happen when parents unexpectedly abandon their children. Super acting by Andrew Robertson as Jack and Charlotte Gainsbourg as Julie. With their parents dead, it is the older sister and the sexually curious younger brother who adjust to the reality of social rules and regulations which demand the family. Jack and Julie assume the role of parents. However, their acceptance promotes sexual emotions and not parental responsibilities. Eventually, the older sister's involvement with an admirer threatens their secret but developing incest relationship.
Quincy L (fr) wrote: 'B' version of Thelma and Louise, but I thoght it was a good movie.
Keldon M (gb) wrote: Fred Thompson and White Sands? I want tl see this.
TheScarlatescu R (kr) wrote: review coming soon ...
Dirk G (kr) wrote: Although toted by many as a classic, this film does not leave anything other than two questions; How and why was this made?
Jeffrey P (us) wrote: Normally I love Bill Murray, and Kate Hudson is always enjoyable, but this just fell flat. Badly.