sddavis63
Iscritto in data apr 2000
Ti diamo il benvenuto nel nuovo profilo
I nostri aggiornamenti sono ancora in fase di sviluppo. Sebbene la versione precedente del profilo non sia più accessibile, stiamo lavorando attivamente ai miglioramenti e alcune delle funzionalità mancanti torneranno presto! Non perderti il loro ritorno. Nel frattempo, l’analisi delle valutazioni è ancora disponibile sulle nostre app iOS e Android, che si trovano nella pagina del profilo. Per visualizzare la tua distribuzione delle valutazioni per anno e genere, fai riferimento alla nostra nuova Guida di aiuto.
Distintivi3
Per sapere come ottenere i badge, vai a pagina di aiuto per i badge.
Valutazioni2145
Valutazione di sddavis63
Recensioni2136
Valutazione di sddavis63
I did have the thought about halfway through this: why not just call in the Chinese Navy to blast this thing with some torpedoes and be rid of it? I mean, in spite of what was said, this wasn't happening "in the middle of the ocean." It was 200 miles off the Chinese coast. International waters, sure - but why not call in the Chinese Navy? They're not that far away. Well, that was dealt with later - it's hard to get the Navy to take you seriously when you tell them there's a prehistoric giant shark on the loose.
And there you have the basic story. This is sort of like "Jaws" on steroids. I'm no scientist, but this still struck me as being based on some pretty way out science - like the bottom of the Mariana Trench (the deepest part of Earth's oceans) isn't actually the bottom of the Mariana Trench? There's some weird barrier sort of thing that everyone thought was the bottom but wasn't the bottom? But - we've been to the bottom of the Mariana Trench. The bottom is the bottom, it's not some weird barrier we thought was the bottom. OK. Weird science. You kind of need that to have a creature feature, I guess. And that's what this is.
You don't expect stellar performances from a creature feature - and you don't get them in "The Meg." For the most part I found the performances lacklustre, and didn't feel any real connection between any of the characters. Jason Statham was stereotypically Jason Statham, Bingbing Li was completely lacking in anything that would have made her character compelling and Robert Taylor must have fallen on some really hard times with the end of "Longmire" to sign up for this. There's not really much point going on further about the cast. The star of a creature feature is the creature. This creature? The giant and prehistoric shark called a Megalodon? Meh. Too obviously CGI in my opinion. I can't say I found it particularly frightening. You also expect some attempts at humour to be thrown in to a movie like this - for the most part they fell flat, and the Meg's attack on the crowded Chinese beach? It was a giant "Jaws" scenario. (At least Pippin somehow survived!) The funniest thing was that, as a kid who liked the old Irwin Allen TV shows, I thought the mini submersibles or whatever they were called vaguely resembled the flying sub from "Voyage To The Bottom Of The Sea" - except it didn't fly, it just submerged.
For all that, for whatever reason, it did keep me watching all the way through. I was interested in how it would turn out if not enthralled by the overall story, cast or characters. I guess that's worth something. It earns this movie 3/10 from me.
And there you have the basic story. This is sort of like "Jaws" on steroids. I'm no scientist, but this still struck me as being based on some pretty way out science - like the bottom of the Mariana Trench (the deepest part of Earth's oceans) isn't actually the bottom of the Mariana Trench? There's some weird barrier sort of thing that everyone thought was the bottom but wasn't the bottom? But - we've been to the bottom of the Mariana Trench. The bottom is the bottom, it's not some weird barrier we thought was the bottom. OK. Weird science. You kind of need that to have a creature feature, I guess. And that's what this is.
You don't expect stellar performances from a creature feature - and you don't get them in "The Meg." For the most part I found the performances lacklustre, and didn't feel any real connection between any of the characters. Jason Statham was stereotypically Jason Statham, Bingbing Li was completely lacking in anything that would have made her character compelling and Robert Taylor must have fallen on some really hard times with the end of "Longmire" to sign up for this. There's not really much point going on further about the cast. The star of a creature feature is the creature. This creature? The giant and prehistoric shark called a Megalodon? Meh. Too obviously CGI in my opinion. I can't say I found it particularly frightening. You also expect some attempts at humour to be thrown in to a movie like this - for the most part they fell flat, and the Meg's attack on the crowded Chinese beach? It was a giant "Jaws" scenario. (At least Pippin somehow survived!) The funniest thing was that, as a kid who liked the old Irwin Allen TV shows, I thought the mini submersibles or whatever they were called vaguely resembled the flying sub from "Voyage To The Bottom Of The Sea" - except it didn't fly, it just submerged.
For all that, for whatever reason, it did keep me watching all the way through. I was interested in how it would turn out if not enthralled by the overall story, cast or characters. I guess that's worth something. It earns this movie 3/10 from me.
I would say first of all that I liked this movie. It's a remake of a 1956 film of the same name - a film I've never seen, so I had no preconceived notions going into this; no real idea of how the story would unfold. I only knew that this was a remake. That's important, because I'm going to start this review off by saying that the "climax" of the movie was, for me, a bit of a letdown - since I saw the twist coming from very early on and it didn't take me at all by surprise. And since I was pretty sure how this was going to turn out, I was more interested in the ride - how were we going to get to the actual twist at the end? And, overall, the ride was a pretty good one.
It's the story of an investigative reporter (played by Jesse Metcalf, who seemed a bit overwhelmed by the role to be honest) who becomes convinced that a high profile DA (played by Michael Douglas) is planting and manipulating evidence in order to secure convictions against people who were wrongly accused as part of his quest to become Governor. CJ (the reporter) comes up with a wild plan to get himself charged for a murder based on circumstantial evidence, along with video that would exonerate him by demonstrating that evidence was planted. There are a lot of turns in this that do lead up to the twist ending, so even if you do have a sense of where it's all leading (as I did) it's still a movie that holds your attention.
Having said that, aside from wondering about the fate of both CJ and Hunter (the DA) the movie is strangely lacking in any sustained tension. The two tensest moments revolve around the secondary character of a corrupt police detective who's in league with Hunter - his car chase of CJ's friend and colleague Corey, and his pursuit through a parking lot of CJ's girlfriend Ella (played by Amber Tamblyn, and who was also the only character in the movie that I found myself truly caring about) - a prosecutor colleague of Hunter who becomes convinced that her boss is up to no good. When a couple of scenes involving car chases are the most suspenseful parts of a movie - well, that says something. And beyond those two scenes I wouldn't call this an overly suspenseful movie at all.
It's OK. Aside from a general lack of tension or suspense the story has its moments and is well enough put together to keep you watching. Neither Metcalf nor Tamblyn struck me as actors with the presence or charisma to fit easily into lead roles in a big screen production and even Douglas came across as a bit bland. There was nothing noteworthy about his portrayal of Hunter. It also grated on me that CJ and Corey kept talking about winning a Pulitzer (they were TV reporters - TV reporters don't get Pulitzers!) Beyond that, it was a decent story but not an especially memorable one. (6/10)
It's the story of an investigative reporter (played by Jesse Metcalf, who seemed a bit overwhelmed by the role to be honest) who becomes convinced that a high profile DA (played by Michael Douglas) is planting and manipulating evidence in order to secure convictions against people who were wrongly accused as part of his quest to become Governor. CJ (the reporter) comes up with a wild plan to get himself charged for a murder based on circumstantial evidence, along with video that would exonerate him by demonstrating that evidence was planted. There are a lot of turns in this that do lead up to the twist ending, so even if you do have a sense of where it's all leading (as I did) it's still a movie that holds your attention.
Having said that, aside from wondering about the fate of both CJ and Hunter (the DA) the movie is strangely lacking in any sustained tension. The two tensest moments revolve around the secondary character of a corrupt police detective who's in league with Hunter - his car chase of CJ's friend and colleague Corey, and his pursuit through a parking lot of CJ's girlfriend Ella (played by Amber Tamblyn, and who was also the only character in the movie that I found myself truly caring about) - a prosecutor colleague of Hunter who becomes convinced that her boss is up to no good. When a couple of scenes involving car chases are the most suspenseful parts of a movie - well, that says something. And beyond those two scenes I wouldn't call this an overly suspenseful movie at all.
It's OK. Aside from a general lack of tension or suspense the story has its moments and is well enough put together to keep you watching. Neither Metcalf nor Tamblyn struck me as actors with the presence or charisma to fit easily into lead roles in a big screen production and even Douglas came across as a bit bland. There was nothing noteworthy about his portrayal of Hunter. It also grated on me that CJ and Corey kept talking about winning a Pulitzer (they were TV reporters - TV reporters don't get Pulitzers!) Beyond that, it was a decent story but not an especially memorable one. (6/10)