shanfloyd
Joined Jan 2003
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.
Reviews224
shanfloyd's rating
Not much to say about the film. Intelligent sci-fi is the last thing I expect from mainstream Hollywood these days and this pathetic excuse of a film is no exception. The 1951 version of this film was at least, original. Here we are loaded with stupid dialogues, utterly predictable plot twists and the regular dose of how self-destructive humans have superior family values than technologically advanced alien civilizations. And we have morals, people... that if you throw litter in the park and screw the environment a giant alien ball will come from the sky to kick your ass.
Keanu Reeves is so good at playing aliens, androids or the glum depressed mental. Here his Klaatu is very apt. Jennifer Connelly is a good versatile actress who deserves better lines and better roles. But what I understand is that she has to star in these movies once in a while to pay the bills. Jaden Smith and Kathy Bates are good as the cute kid and the tough defense minister respectively, but good performances only work well with good script, which sadly is missing. Even Gort, the giant robot, is so badly used in the film. The 1951 version at least had Gort as a very interesting element of the story.
Oh and the 4 stars are for special visual and sound effects. Hollywood's good at that.
Keanu Reeves is so good at playing aliens, androids or the glum depressed mental. Here his Klaatu is very apt. Jennifer Connelly is a good versatile actress who deserves better lines and better roles. But what I understand is that she has to star in these movies once in a while to pay the bills. Jaden Smith and Kathy Bates are good as the cute kid and the tough defense minister respectively, but good performances only work well with good script, which sadly is missing. Even Gort, the giant robot, is so badly used in the film. The 1951 version at least had Gort as a very interesting element of the story.
Oh and the 4 stars are for special visual and sound effects. Hollywood's good at that.
Helpful•43
Being an ardent fan of the Bourne movies, my suspense was all built up before I sat down to watch this third installment. This is the film where all questions regarding Bourne's past are supposed to be answered. The screenwriters crafted a story compelling enough to keep the viewer occupied before coming down to where Bourne started. Director Paul Greengrass, like "Supremacy", again shows that he knows his job of directing an out-and-out action film very well. Although I'd comment that his trademark shaky hand-held camera technique is quite over-used here.I don't think all action sequences required that.
Matt Damon is once again his composed and physically super-fit Jason Bourne persona. Among the other actors David Strathairn steals the show as the CIA project chief Vosen. The role of Nicky Parsons is extended in this film and Julia Stiles does a good job at it.
The action sequences are phenomenal. What makes Bourne films tick is that they attempt to use more modern and different action styles other than simply car explosions, gunfights or chase sequences. The scene where Bourne runs through successive buildings and rooftops in Tangiers is just breathtaking. The use of Keysi fighting methods in the close combat sequences are impressive. Team these up with Greengrass' hand-held camera and sharp film editing and you get Bourne's adrenaline rush.
Read here in IMDb that they're making a fourth Bourne film. Now that Bourne knows his identity it would be difficult to find a suitable storyline as compelling as these were. But lets hope...
Matt Damon is once again his composed and physically super-fit Jason Bourne persona. Among the other actors David Strathairn steals the show as the CIA project chief Vosen. The role of Nicky Parsons is extended in this film and Julia Stiles does a good job at it.
The action sequences are phenomenal. What makes Bourne films tick is that they attempt to use more modern and different action styles other than simply car explosions, gunfights or chase sequences. The scene where Bourne runs through successive buildings and rooftops in Tangiers is just breathtaking. The use of Keysi fighting methods in the close combat sequences are impressive. Team these up with Greengrass' hand-held camera and sharp film editing and you get Bourne's adrenaline rush.
Read here in IMDb that they're making a fourth Bourne film. Now that Bourne knows his identity it would be difficult to find a suitable storyline as compelling as these were. But lets hope...
Helpful•00
Ridley Scott loves his villains. He has always attempted to show the characters with questionable morality in a new light. His characters are never black or white... they just roam in different shades of grey.
Frank Lucas, the character on the other side of law, a drug lord in 70s New Jersey, is Scott's principal character in this film. But Scott would never paint him out-and-out dark with villainy. He needs someone who would play it just according to the right shade of grey. And here we got Denzel Washington. In the scene where Frank shows his newly-bought mansion to his mother and says - "Momma this is your house" ... and in the scene where he puts a bullet through someone's head in the middle of a crowded street - Washington is equally convincing, a delightful screen presence.
These stories particularly need a 'good cop'. High morals, troubled personal life, on the verge of career end, standing alone among his corrupted colleagues - you know the stereotype. This is Ritchie Roberts played by none other than Russell Crowe. Crowe is proved champion in playing such diligent, meticulous characters. Here his accent, attention and mannerisms are perfect. Josh Brolin is again awesome in his supporting role.
Based on a true story, the screenplay does a good job in curbing the need of first-person narrations in such a story. It is surprisingly low-key, but is able to deliver the required amount of tension and style. The action sequences are extremely well-balanced, ruthless but never seemed tiring. "American Gangster" is definitely one of the best movies of 2007... but it falls short of absolute greatness, for a reason somehow unknown.
Frank Lucas, the character on the other side of law, a drug lord in 70s New Jersey, is Scott's principal character in this film. But Scott would never paint him out-and-out dark with villainy. He needs someone who would play it just according to the right shade of grey. And here we got Denzel Washington. In the scene where Frank shows his newly-bought mansion to his mother and says - "Momma this is your house" ... and in the scene where he puts a bullet through someone's head in the middle of a crowded street - Washington is equally convincing, a delightful screen presence.
These stories particularly need a 'good cop'. High morals, troubled personal life, on the verge of career end, standing alone among his corrupted colleagues - you know the stereotype. This is Ritchie Roberts played by none other than Russell Crowe. Crowe is proved champion in playing such diligent, meticulous characters. Here his accent, attention and mannerisms are perfect. Josh Brolin is again awesome in his supporting role.
Based on a true story, the screenplay does a good job in curbing the need of first-person narrations in such a story. It is surprisingly low-key, but is able to deliver the required amount of tension and style. The action sequences are extremely well-balanced, ruthless but never seemed tiring. "American Gangster" is definitely one of the best movies of 2007... but it falls short of absolute greatness, for a reason somehow unknown.
Helpful•01