Now, where's that disclaimer?
WARNING: This review contains spoilers. Please proceed only if you a)have watched the movie(s); b)don't intent to watch the movie(s) but want to know more about it/them; c) are going to watch it/them, but want to know its/their plot and storyline because of lack of impatience.
You have been WARNED.
Paul Conroy(Ryan Reynolds) is a truck driver in Iraq, who is kidnapped by terrorists and... buried. In a coffin. The title rather suggests that, doesn't it?
Before we go on, just imagine being buried. In a coffin. Underground. With absolutely nobody around, and only a Blackberry, a Zippo(lighter) and a few other items. Got the idea? Good, let's carry on.
Naturally, Paul tries to do all he can to save himself, ex calling the FBI, his employers, his wife etc.
You have to watch the movie to find out what happened, but I'll tell you this: It is FANTASTIC.
Before I watched it, I was wondering how the director was going to fill in 1.5 hours by just filming Paul in a coffin. I mean, come on. What can he do that is remotely interesting? Sing?
However, saying that Rodrigo Cortés-the director- pulled it off would be just an understatement. This is easily my personal second-best movie of 2010. What he manages to with so little-fill your heart with worry and anxiety for the him(Paul), share his pain and loss of hope and make you gasp at some of the awful things Paul has to do at the demand at the terrorists.
A fantastic job, considering how the director managed to bring so much out of so little. (8/10)
Click on the pic, and you'll see the question "How do you stop a killer who is already behind bars?"
Good question.
Wikipedia: "Clyde Shelton (Gerard Butler) saw the murder of his wife and daughter (right in front of him) at the hands of Clarence Darby (Christian Stolte) and his accomplice Rupert Ames (Josh Stewart). During their trial, prosecutor Nick Rice (Jamie Foxx) informs Clyde that DNA evidence incriminating Clarence has been deemed inadmissible due to botched forensics because, according to Nick, the actions of the police at the crime scene affected its solidity in court, and that Clyde's testimony alone is insufficient to prove either suspect's guilt. Nick, interested in maintaining his high conviction rate, strikes a deal: Clarence gives testimony that will send Rupert to death row, and in exchange Nick allows Clarence to plead guilty to third-degree murder, for which he will only serve a few years in prison. Knowing that Clarence was the actual killer, Clyde is left feeling betrayed by both Nick and the justice system."
Sorry for such a long paragraph, but I didn't find a good enough way to describe the beginning of the movie.
I think you can guess what's coming next; what happens when someone is left betrayed so badly? Why, he kills them all, of course.
First, he gets revenge on Rupert by switching the drugs for his death sentence to let him die a painful death. Clarence is suspected for this, but Clyde leads him away from the police... into his own hands. Ouch.
I would say that he proceeded to torture and cut him into (personal estimate)14378 pieces, but to keep this below 18+ rating...
The audience will be shocked when Clyde surrenders himself to the police. Even more when he demands a high quality mattress in return for a confession. A mattress, for heaven's sake.
Ah, but wait: Clyde is a master tactician.
I won't give out too much, but even the entire city has to be put on marshal law because of what he's doing. Even in jail.
However, I feel they have overdone it a bit in terms of action and violence. You know, the type that Hollywood feels is necessary to be put in every film they make?
Otherwise, though, a good watch, especially for those who love a well crafted plot/storyline. (7.5/10)
Ah, two big names from Hollywood together. Should be a hell of a film, yes? No?
Neither. Sadly, I might add.
Elise(Jolie) is a woman who is being trailed by Scotland Yard. She receives a letter from a former lover, Alexander Pearce(who has stolen 2 billion from a gangster and is wanted by the British government for tax evasion) telling her to board a train to Venice, pick a man who looks like him and make the cope think that it is him. She does so and picks Frank(Johny Depp, but you probably guessed this)
Interesting, isn't it? And the rest of the plot is actually quite interesting too.
Where it falls apart is the acting. It's obvious that Depp and Jolie don't bond well(although I like Jolie's lines). The pace of the movie is also too slow and cumbersome for an action film. The action itself is mediocre. It's like they want you to take a good long look at the beautiful scenery that they're shooting. A holiday commercial then? Perhaps.
It's sad, really, because the scenery is beautiful. The movie isn't. It's just average. And for a big film with two big stars and a big budget, it's not enough. (5/10)
Yet two big names again. The difference is these two are nearer to their expiry day than the other two mentioned above. An even bigger recipe for disaster?
Not really.
June Havens(Diaz) is a woman going to her sister's wedding that happens to be in the wrong place, at the wrong time. To be more specific, the wrong plane and flight time. This is because she ends up with Roy Millers(Cruise), an agent on the run. Who has plenty of enemy agents(both from his former employers and outside gangsters) and after him. She must now stay with him, because if the enemy agents get her, she will be interrogated, tortured and possibly raped(ok I made that up). As Tom Cruise puts it, "If you're with me, your chances of survival(raises hand)-this high. Without me(lowers hand), this low. With me; without me. With me..."
Unlike the previous film, the actors here are pretty good. They are fun and humorous, especially Tom. This is because this film is pitted as an cool, funny and breezy-type action movie. Plot is ok.
What spoilt the movie for me was the unrealistic scenes. I understand that they want to make it funny, but showing Tom desperately hiding from the bullets, then just walk through the battlefield to walk over to Cameron? Cameron managing to drive a car unknown to her through a tunnel full of other motorists without a scratch? Really?
It's still an ok watch; just don't expect to care much about the storyline.(6.5/10)
Toy Story 3
Being the third and final of the series, one wonders whether the great Pixar will finally screw it up. I mean, just look at the movies destroyed by prequel; Terminator and Meet The Parents, anyone?
Guess what: They've done it again.
I'm to lazy to write the plot as my arm is already aching by now, so....
Wikipedia: "Andy is now 17 years old and packing for college, and his toys who have not been played with in years feel forgotten and abandoned. Andy decides to take Woody with him to college and intends to store the other toys in the attic. By accident, Andy's mom throws the other toys away, making them think they are no longer wanted; they escape and decide to climb in a box to be donated to the Sunnyside Daycare. Woody, the only toy who saw what really happened, is forced to follow the others and tries to explain they were thrown out by mistake, but they refuse to listen."
Woody leaves, but later finds out that the toys have been tricked. I'm stopping here, because any more would ruin it.
This movie represents everything that is good about Pixar: Awesome scenes and scenery, great and funny lines, themes that touch your heart, characters that you can relate to, and an ending that will make you cry. Literally.
It's my favourite movie of the year, and my favourite Pixar movie. And that's saying a lot. (10/10)
