mjg32
Jan. 2007 ist beigetreten
Willkommen auf neuen Profil
Unsere Aktualisierungen befinden sich noch in der Entwicklung. Die vorherige Version Profils ist zwar nicht mehr zugänglich, aber wir arbeiten aktiv an Verbesserungen und einige der fehlenden Funktionen werden bald wieder verfügbar sein! Bleibe dran, bis sie wieder verfügbar sind. In der Zwischenzeit ist Bewertungsanalyse weiterhin in unseren iOS- und Android-Apps verfügbar, die auf deiner Profilseite findest. Damit deine Bewertungsverteilung nach Jahr und Genre angezeigt wird, beziehe dich bitte auf unsere neue Hilfeleitfaden.
Abzeichen2
Wie du dir Kennzeichnungen verdienen kannst, erfährst du unter Hilfeseite für Kennzeichnungen.
Rezensionen25
Bewertung von mjg32
By the title, I mean beats it at being total crap, which is some feat. Saw IV is one of the worst films I have ever seen, and I can't believe James Wan doesn't protest at the fact that the latest 2 sequels actually title themselves "Saw". They have absolutely nothing in common with Wan's excellent original. No. 2 also had little in common, but at least it was just about decent. Now all logic has been swept aside, the story is terrible and the traps are poorly designed. The director hired to take Wan's mantle, Darren Lynn Bousman, has once again proved he has no talent for the horror genre. Saw 2, 3 and 4 aren't scary in the slightest, and he can't even generate decent suspense, due to the fact he can't think of anything new to replace people jumping out of the dark.
Once again, Jigsaw's past has formed part of the storyline, presumably to try and show us why he does what he does. But why would we care? The first film tells us his basic premise - he wants people that he feels do not appreciate their existence to show him that they do. We also found out later that he himself has contracted cancer, which started off his motive. That's enough surely, why does 3 and 4 try to make us sympathise with Jigsaw by trying to show him as a normal person? Tobin Bell is also a really poor actor, and displays the same emotion during every scene, whether he is killing, or in an 'emotional' scene with his girlfriend.
Also, the story has again been neglected for horrific torture scenes. Although the first installment was marketed as being violent, it actually contains minimal violent scenes, and had a genuinely interesting idea. Saw 4 contains many traps, but at no point did I care about any of the characters - I didn't know anything about them, as no time was spent on developing them. The storyline is basically identical to that of Saw 3, and it really is a boring film - any supposedly scary moments are predictable. Another thing, why are some of these people even being put in these stupid games. The main character's reason for being there is 'he wants to save everyone'. What? Is that a crime? Surely thats a good thing. Why does Jigsaw claim he is doing the right thing and then torture a person who is 1) doing a respectful job and 2) arresting the very people he originally tortured because he thought they were bad?
*SPOILER*
The story also makes little sense. If the new 'apprentice' guy knows Jigsaw is dead, why doesn't he just shout to our "hero" Rigg and tell him not to walk into the room before 90 minutes, so they can survive, instead of relying on him not doing the thing that he has been specifically told to do.
*SPOILER OVER*
Also, what is with the lighting? Why do characters walk around their houses at night without switching lights on? Yes, darkness can be scary, but when characters are having regular conversations there's no need to build suspense, and we would like to actually see what is going on when we go to view a movie! All in all, this is one of the worst I've ever seen. Not only does it rely on gratuitous and disgusting violence as a sole reason for entertainment, the story is absolutely awful, and the 'twist' makes no real sense and is completely stupid. Hopefully people have realised this increasingly abysmal franchise has nothing to offer, and its days of making a nice profit at the box office are over.
Once again, Jigsaw's past has formed part of the storyline, presumably to try and show us why he does what he does. But why would we care? The first film tells us his basic premise - he wants people that he feels do not appreciate their existence to show him that they do. We also found out later that he himself has contracted cancer, which started off his motive. That's enough surely, why does 3 and 4 try to make us sympathise with Jigsaw by trying to show him as a normal person? Tobin Bell is also a really poor actor, and displays the same emotion during every scene, whether he is killing, or in an 'emotional' scene with his girlfriend.
Also, the story has again been neglected for horrific torture scenes. Although the first installment was marketed as being violent, it actually contains minimal violent scenes, and had a genuinely interesting idea. Saw 4 contains many traps, but at no point did I care about any of the characters - I didn't know anything about them, as no time was spent on developing them. The storyline is basically identical to that of Saw 3, and it really is a boring film - any supposedly scary moments are predictable. Another thing, why are some of these people even being put in these stupid games. The main character's reason for being there is 'he wants to save everyone'. What? Is that a crime? Surely thats a good thing. Why does Jigsaw claim he is doing the right thing and then torture a person who is 1) doing a respectful job and 2) arresting the very people he originally tortured because he thought they were bad?
*SPOILER*
The story also makes little sense. If the new 'apprentice' guy knows Jigsaw is dead, why doesn't he just shout to our "hero" Rigg and tell him not to walk into the room before 90 minutes, so they can survive, instead of relying on him not doing the thing that he has been specifically told to do.
*SPOILER OVER*
Also, what is with the lighting? Why do characters walk around their houses at night without switching lights on? Yes, darkness can be scary, but when characters are having regular conversations there's no need to build suspense, and we would like to actually see what is going on when we go to view a movie! All in all, this is one of the worst I've ever seen. Not only does it rely on gratuitous and disgusting violence as a sole reason for entertainment, the story is absolutely awful, and the 'twist' makes no real sense and is completely stupid. Hopefully people have realised this increasingly abysmal franchise has nothing to offer, and its days of making a nice profit at the box office are over.
Due to one of my friends being a Rambo fanatic, I agreed to go and see Rambo despite not having seen the first 3. I didn't have any high expectations, but what I was expecting was an enjoyable fast paced action film. What I got was a boring, repetitive, ridiculous, gratuitous mess, that has clearly been made to make its ageing star as much pension money as possible before he can't do these mad stunts, with no emphasis on even a hint of quality.
There are many reasons why I thought Rambo to be so bad. The acting is dreadful, most of the cast are just annoying (especially that bald commando guy, who deems it necessary to swear at least 4 times per sentence) and the plot doesn't make much sense. For instance, when the Christians first approach Rambo, he refuses to help them and it is made clear he has absolutely no interest in doing so. Then enters the entirely bland and unconvincing Julie Benz, and it takes her about 30 seconds of dialogue for her to convince him.
My main argument may sound quite bizarre, but it is the violence that makes Rambo stand out as a poor film. I was obviously expecting a lot, but here it is way over the top, very repetitive and horribly gratuitous. It is of those films where the makers just put as much violence in as possible to appeal to 'action' fans, just because they can't think of anything new, and want to show off how many ways they can viciously slaughter random characters. 230 odd people die in the film, and about 150 are in the last 10 minutes, and it gets incredibly boring.
Stallone is the only actor to come out the other side with any credibility, basically because Rambo is the quietest character.
*SPOILER*
He is also the only character we really know anything about - the rest of the character's development really is non-existent. For instance, at the end when Julie Benz's character and her boyfriend (supposedly) get back together, a load of epic music is blasted at you, as if you care. How can we care? The guy only has about 3 lines in the entire film, and they're only brought about when the Burmese psychopaths are attacking them.
*END OF SPOILER*
I honestly can't believe this film still has a rating of nearly 8. It really is awful, unrealistic and gratuitously horrible. I don't mind violent films if the violence is justified (e.g. Oldboy), but don't just bombard us with violence to try and cover up how inept your actors are. A lot of reviewers on IMDb have said things like "The re-birth of old action films!" Well, if this is like an old action film, thank god someone thought to make new ones.
There are many reasons why I thought Rambo to be so bad. The acting is dreadful, most of the cast are just annoying (especially that bald commando guy, who deems it necessary to swear at least 4 times per sentence) and the plot doesn't make much sense. For instance, when the Christians first approach Rambo, he refuses to help them and it is made clear he has absolutely no interest in doing so. Then enters the entirely bland and unconvincing Julie Benz, and it takes her about 30 seconds of dialogue for her to convince him.
My main argument may sound quite bizarre, but it is the violence that makes Rambo stand out as a poor film. I was obviously expecting a lot, but here it is way over the top, very repetitive and horribly gratuitous. It is of those films where the makers just put as much violence in as possible to appeal to 'action' fans, just because they can't think of anything new, and want to show off how many ways they can viciously slaughter random characters. 230 odd people die in the film, and about 150 are in the last 10 minutes, and it gets incredibly boring.
Stallone is the only actor to come out the other side with any credibility, basically because Rambo is the quietest character.
*SPOILER*
He is also the only character we really know anything about - the rest of the character's development really is non-existent. For instance, at the end when Julie Benz's character and her boyfriend (supposedly) get back together, a load of epic music is blasted at you, as if you care. How can we care? The guy only has about 3 lines in the entire film, and they're only brought about when the Burmese psychopaths are attacking them.
*END OF SPOILER*
I honestly can't believe this film still has a rating of nearly 8. It really is awful, unrealistic and gratuitously horrible. I don't mind violent films if the violence is justified (e.g. Oldboy), but don't just bombard us with violence to try and cover up how inept your actors are. A lot of reviewers on IMDb have said things like "The re-birth of old action films!" Well, if this is like an old action film, thank god someone thought to make new ones.
Well done Paul Greengrass.
United 93 is a superbly well made film, especially coming into its own during the terrorist attack sequences. The last half hour is very intense, and Greengrass has created a fully believable, documentary style account of flight 93. Having a full cast of unknowns also helps with the believability factor; and the shaky hand camera that got so much criticism after The Bourne Supremacy really is wonderfully used here.
Okay, there are some truly awful lines of dialogue, but I do feel harsh pointing that out - because a lot of effort has clearly been made on this film. But this isn't about talking, its more of an experience.
The people who criticise United 93, seem to because they think films should not be made about this kind of thing. The same happened to Schindler's List. Seeing as movies are a hugely popular culture, surely there isn't any better way to educate people on these matters. Greengrass clearly didn't make this for entertainment or to make money, this was a tribute to everyone involved during 9/11, and a very good one at that.
United 93 is a superbly well made film, especially coming into its own during the terrorist attack sequences. The last half hour is very intense, and Greengrass has created a fully believable, documentary style account of flight 93. Having a full cast of unknowns also helps with the believability factor; and the shaky hand camera that got so much criticism after The Bourne Supremacy really is wonderfully used here.
Okay, there are some truly awful lines of dialogue, but I do feel harsh pointing that out - because a lot of effort has clearly been made on this film. But this isn't about talking, its more of an experience.
The people who criticise United 93, seem to because they think films should not be made about this kind of thing. The same happened to Schindler's List. Seeing as movies are a hugely popular culture, surely there isn't any better way to educate people on these matters. Greengrass clearly didn't make this for entertainment or to make money, this was a tribute to everyone involved during 9/11, and a very good one at that.