thefleece2
Joined Jul 2012
Welcome to the new profile
Our updates are still in development. While the previous version of the profile is no longer accessible, we're actively working on improvements, and some of the missing features will be returning soon! Stay tuned for their return. In the meantime, the Ratings Analysis is still available on our iOS and Android apps, found on the profile page. To view your Rating Distribution(s) by Year and Genre, please refer to our new Help guide.
Badges3
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Reviews7
thefleece2's rating
Release Date: 2nd August 2013 (UK)
Back in 2010, the original Red proved to be a surprise hit. Whilst the film wasn't exactly innovative, it was great to see all these acclaimed actors and actresses come together to form their own Expendables type group. As a result, the film proved to be a surprise box-office hit, and as you can see, grossed enough to warrant a sequel. However, the question is was a sequel really necessary?
The film see's Bruce Willis, now livingly peacefully alongside his girlfriend, played Mary Louise Parker. But as you can imagine that tranquil atmosphere doesn't last very long, when it becomes apparent that a portable nuclear devise must be shut down, before it falls into the hands of the wrong people. Therefore, Bruce Willis reforms his old group RED, to track down and terminate the devise.
Whilst I don't recall many of the elements inside the original Red, I do remember enjoying that film. It was an entertaining popcorn flick, released at the time when cinema becomes serious, with potential Oscar contenders taking much of the spotlight. However, when I initially heard that a sequel was in development, I was quite shocked. Because let's be honest, Red isn't really the type of film that warrants a sequel. I don't think anyone left the first film begging for another instalment, but as far as I'm concerned if it entertained me, I was happy and that's exactly what this sequel did, it entertained me.
Now of course, arguably the biggest pleasure with both of these films is the cast. This time round we see the recurring faces of Bruce Willis, John Malkovich, Mary-Louise Parker and Helen Mirren all returning to portray their respective characters. As well as having new additions such as Catherine Zeta Jones, Anthony Hopkins and Byung-hun Lee adding to an already stellar line-up, and as a result, there is not one bad performance in the entire film, but with these people involved would you really expect anything to go wrong? If I was to single anyone out in particular, it would have to be the legendary Anthony Hopkins, with a special mention also going to Mary-Louise Parker, who I thought was equally as brilliant in the more comedic, sidekick type role.
Whilst the pacing can be slightly off, the film is expertly shot, with the action sequences being very well cinematised. Thankfully, I don't recall a single use of shaky-cam and in a 2013 action movie that can prove to be a bit of a rarity. As I said there cannot be a single complaint performance wise and whilst the plot is totally unoriginal and very predictable, it somehow works with the tone of the film.
That being said, whilst the first film had a wickedly, sharp sense of humour, this sequel is lacking in that department. It's not a complete travesty, but I didn't find myself laughing as much as I would have liked to. Sure, as an audience member I chuckled here and there, but there was never a time when I felt the need to laugh out loud, and seeing as the humour in the original film was one of the aspects that I recall enjoying the most, for it to be lacking in this sequel was kind of disappointing.
But nevertheless, Red 2 is a solid follow-up to original film. It's well-acted and the chemistry everyone shares is unprecedented. Sure, it's not a barrel of laughs or well-paced for that matter, but the final act and set pieces more than make-up for it.
6/10
Check out my website: www.jacks-reviews.com
Back in 2010, the original Red proved to be a surprise hit. Whilst the film wasn't exactly innovative, it was great to see all these acclaimed actors and actresses come together to form their own Expendables type group. As a result, the film proved to be a surprise box-office hit, and as you can see, grossed enough to warrant a sequel. However, the question is was a sequel really necessary?
The film see's Bruce Willis, now livingly peacefully alongside his girlfriend, played Mary Louise Parker. But as you can imagine that tranquil atmosphere doesn't last very long, when it becomes apparent that a portable nuclear devise must be shut down, before it falls into the hands of the wrong people. Therefore, Bruce Willis reforms his old group RED, to track down and terminate the devise.
Whilst I don't recall many of the elements inside the original Red, I do remember enjoying that film. It was an entertaining popcorn flick, released at the time when cinema becomes serious, with potential Oscar contenders taking much of the spotlight. However, when I initially heard that a sequel was in development, I was quite shocked. Because let's be honest, Red isn't really the type of film that warrants a sequel. I don't think anyone left the first film begging for another instalment, but as far as I'm concerned if it entertained me, I was happy and that's exactly what this sequel did, it entertained me.
Now of course, arguably the biggest pleasure with both of these films is the cast. This time round we see the recurring faces of Bruce Willis, John Malkovich, Mary-Louise Parker and Helen Mirren all returning to portray their respective characters. As well as having new additions such as Catherine Zeta Jones, Anthony Hopkins and Byung-hun Lee adding to an already stellar line-up, and as a result, there is not one bad performance in the entire film, but with these people involved would you really expect anything to go wrong? If I was to single anyone out in particular, it would have to be the legendary Anthony Hopkins, with a special mention also going to Mary-Louise Parker, who I thought was equally as brilliant in the more comedic, sidekick type role.
Whilst the pacing can be slightly off, the film is expertly shot, with the action sequences being very well cinematised. Thankfully, I don't recall a single use of shaky-cam and in a 2013 action movie that can prove to be a bit of a rarity. As I said there cannot be a single complaint performance wise and whilst the plot is totally unoriginal and very predictable, it somehow works with the tone of the film.
That being said, whilst the first film had a wickedly, sharp sense of humour, this sequel is lacking in that department. It's not a complete travesty, but I didn't find myself laughing as much as I would have liked to. Sure, as an audience member I chuckled here and there, but there was never a time when I felt the need to laugh out loud, and seeing as the humour in the original film was one of the aspects that I recall enjoying the most, for it to be lacking in this sequel was kind of disappointing.
But nevertheless, Red 2 is a solid follow-up to original film. It's well-acted and the chemistry everyone shares is unprecedented. Sure, it's not a barrel of laughs or well-paced for that matter, but the final act and set pieces more than make-up for it.
6/10
Check out my website: www.jacks-reviews.com
Release Date: 2nd August 2013 (UK)
Anime has never been my strongest genre in the realms of cinema and culture. As a kid, like most people my age, I religiously watched Yu-Gi-Oh and on the odd occasion an episode of Pokémon. So going into the latest studio Ghibli flick, "From Up on Poppy Hill", I was sceptical, despite the critical acclaim that the studio has received in the past.
Of course, whenever venturing into anything new, there is obviously going to be a lot of uncertainty. It's human nature after all, and when I originally saw the trailer for this film, the screening I was in, greeted it with howls of laughter and continuously questioned what it actually was, and that alone, is the reason I went out to see the film. I wanted to find out more about it.
Upon doing my research, it's evidently clear that Studio Ghibli has created some of the best animated films of all time, yet I have never actually seen one.
It was a personal choice of mine to see this film in its traditional format. That being the Japanese version, instead of the England dub. Did I make the right choice? I personally think so, however the fact that I had to continuously read, prevented me from taking in the beautiful hand-drawn landscapes that the film boasted.
Whilst I wasn't particularly fond of the film, I have to applaud it from an aesthetic angle. Because despite the wizardry shown on behalf of studios such as Pixar and DreamWorks, nothing compares to hand-drawn animation, and the visuals in this film are absolutely beautiful. At first it took a while for me to really appreciate the craft, as it did take ten minutes or so for my eyes to adjust to what I was watching, but once I was in, I found myself slightly hypnotised, and as a result, not particularly interested in what was developing, plot-wise on screen.
The plot of the film is very straight forward. Based in Japan, in the year 1964, the Olympic Games are on the way, and a group of teenagers want to save their beloved club-house from destruction in what is deemed as preparation for the Games. In the midst of all this, a young boy and girl meet and a relationship slowly starts to form between them.
Although I adored the film aesthetically, the overall plot was incredibly weak. It was very predictable and I even saw the main plot-twist coming. The biggest problem with the film is simple. It's too nice. I was never moved by the film, and it's relatively harmless, despite the fact that at one point it becomes very strange, and even hints at the possibility of incest? Anyway, the film is totally lacking in emotion. As a viewer I sat there, wanting to be engrossed in this story, but the plot really is as thin as a wafer. There is simply nothing to care about, and although I understand that some people may disagree with me, due to there being an element that is viewed as being slightly tragic, as a viewer I felt completely disengaged, which resulted in me not caring as much as I would have liked to.
Nevertheless, like the visuals, the score courtesy of Satoshi Takebe really is beautiful. Mainly I preferred the instrumental tracks as opposed to the ones that featured vocals, but they really worked with the tone of the film and they certainly added something to it as a whole.
From Up on Poppy Hill is not a bad film. I just didn't find it very enjoyable. I thought it had brilliant production elements, but the people behind the film didn't manage to give it a script that matched the work they'd created visually. So instead of getting an emotionally investing story, we're just stuck with a beautiful looking movie and not much else.
5/10
Check out my website: www.jacks-reviews.com
Anime has never been my strongest genre in the realms of cinema and culture. As a kid, like most people my age, I religiously watched Yu-Gi-Oh and on the odd occasion an episode of Pokémon. So going into the latest studio Ghibli flick, "From Up on Poppy Hill", I was sceptical, despite the critical acclaim that the studio has received in the past.
Of course, whenever venturing into anything new, there is obviously going to be a lot of uncertainty. It's human nature after all, and when I originally saw the trailer for this film, the screening I was in, greeted it with howls of laughter and continuously questioned what it actually was, and that alone, is the reason I went out to see the film. I wanted to find out more about it.
Upon doing my research, it's evidently clear that Studio Ghibli has created some of the best animated films of all time, yet I have never actually seen one.
It was a personal choice of mine to see this film in its traditional format. That being the Japanese version, instead of the England dub. Did I make the right choice? I personally think so, however the fact that I had to continuously read, prevented me from taking in the beautiful hand-drawn landscapes that the film boasted.
Whilst I wasn't particularly fond of the film, I have to applaud it from an aesthetic angle. Because despite the wizardry shown on behalf of studios such as Pixar and DreamWorks, nothing compares to hand-drawn animation, and the visuals in this film are absolutely beautiful. At first it took a while for me to really appreciate the craft, as it did take ten minutes or so for my eyes to adjust to what I was watching, but once I was in, I found myself slightly hypnotised, and as a result, not particularly interested in what was developing, plot-wise on screen.
The plot of the film is very straight forward. Based in Japan, in the year 1964, the Olympic Games are on the way, and a group of teenagers want to save their beloved club-house from destruction in what is deemed as preparation for the Games. In the midst of all this, a young boy and girl meet and a relationship slowly starts to form between them.
Although I adored the film aesthetically, the overall plot was incredibly weak. It was very predictable and I even saw the main plot-twist coming. The biggest problem with the film is simple. It's too nice. I was never moved by the film, and it's relatively harmless, despite the fact that at one point it becomes very strange, and even hints at the possibility of incest? Anyway, the film is totally lacking in emotion. As a viewer I sat there, wanting to be engrossed in this story, but the plot really is as thin as a wafer. There is simply nothing to care about, and although I understand that some people may disagree with me, due to there being an element that is viewed as being slightly tragic, as a viewer I felt completely disengaged, which resulted in me not caring as much as I would have liked to.
Nevertheless, like the visuals, the score courtesy of Satoshi Takebe really is beautiful. Mainly I preferred the instrumental tracks as opposed to the ones that featured vocals, but they really worked with the tone of the film and they certainly added something to it as a whole.
From Up on Poppy Hill is not a bad film. I just didn't find it very enjoyable. I thought it had brilliant production elements, but the people behind the film didn't manage to give it a script that matched the work they'd created visually. So instead of getting an emotionally investing story, we're just stuck with a beautiful looking movie and not much else.
5/10
Check out my website: www.jacks-reviews.com
Release Date: 2nd August 2013 (US)
After starring briefly in two of the years worst films, Lindsay Lohan makes her full length return in Paul Schrader's "The Canyons". A film that documents just how crazy one individual can go, when he finds out about the secret love affair between his girlfriend and the lead on his film project.
With this being Lindsay Lohan's first full length appearance since the critically panned, "Labor Pains" released in 2009, there has been a lot of correspondence and speculation surrounding this indie flick.
Despite hearing some very mixed opinions, I have to say I wasn't particularly fazed by "The Canyons". The film is littered with problems, yet I never really had any trouble sitting through it. It is overdramatic and slightly ridiculous, but at times, that alone makes it a very compelling watch.
Don't get me wrong, I didn't enjoy the movie, but I didn't dislike it either. It's a very middle of the road experience. Well at least it was for me anyway.
The films production budget is very low. So don't go into it expecting some extravagant revenge-romance esque thriller, because that's not what it is. In a way, the films plot-line could be compared to that of a soap opera. It's not particularly exciting, but it is partially entertaining watching it unfold.
However, for such a low budget film ($250,000 to be precise), the film is actually rather attractive. It is very well lit and the various locations work with the direction that the film goes in. It's well cinematised, and in terms of shots, whilst it doesn't do anything original, there were times when I was watching the film amending some of the cinematography.
Now a lot of media outlets have compared to the film to porn. I don't necessarily agree with that statement. Sure there are specific body parts that are revealed on numerous occasions, but whilst there is an emphasis on sex, it's not as explicit as a lot of people have made it out to be.
The performances are average. Nobody really impressed me and whilst nobody is bad, some of the dialogue is very cheesy and repetitive, but of course that can only be blamed on the writers. Lindsay Lohan offers a solid turn as does real life porn star, James Deen, but nobody does anything that you're going to love or remember the next day. Everyone's very mediocre, and due to how ridiculous the film eventually becomes, the characters all end up becoming rather comical.
Whilst the film does lack in its key areas, along with the cinematography, one of the aspects I liked was the score. I will be the first to admit that it does sound very amateurish, but the electronic nature of it occasionally works, with what the movie is trying to present. That presentation being that shouldn't have affairs, especially if you're dating a complete an utter psychopath.
I have to admit The Canyons was lot of better than I expected it to be. I didn't necessarily enjoy it, but there were aspects to it that I liked. Perhaps I'm being too nice, but for a low budget production I didn't find it too bad. If you have a partial interest in seeing it, see it. But if you don't, then I wouldn't bother.
5/10
Check out my website: www.jacks-reviews.com
After starring briefly in two of the years worst films, Lindsay Lohan makes her full length return in Paul Schrader's "The Canyons". A film that documents just how crazy one individual can go, when he finds out about the secret love affair between his girlfriend and the lead on his film project.
With this being Lindsay Lohan's first full length appearance since the critically panned, "Labor Pains" released in 2009, there has been a lot of correspondence and speculation surrounding this indie flick.
Despite hearing some very mixed opinions, I have to say I wasn't particularly fazed by "The Canyons". The film is littered with problems, yet I never really had any trouble sitting through it. It is overdramatic and slightly ridiculous, but at times, that alone makes it a very compelling watch.
Don't get me wrong, I didn't enjoy the movie, but I didn't dislike it either. It's a very middle of the road experience. Well at least it was for me anyway.
The films production budget is very low. So don't go into it expecting some extravagant revenge-romance esque thriller, because that's not what it is. In a way, the films plot-line could be compared to that of a soap opera. It's not particularly exciting, but it is partially entertaining watching it unfold.
However, for such a low budget film ($250,000 to be precise), the film is actually rather attractive. It is very well lit and the various locations work with the direction that the film goes in. It's well cinematised, and in terms of shots, whilst it doesn't do anything original, there were times when I was watching the film amending some of the cinematography.
Now a lot of media outlets have compared to the film to porn. I don't necessarily agree with that statement. Sure there are specific body parts that are revealed on numerous occasions, but whilst there is an emphasis on sex, it's not as explicit as a lot of people have made it out to be.
The performances are average. Nobody really impressed me and whilst nobody is bad, some of the dialogue is very cheesy and repetitive, but of course that can only be blamed on the writers. Lindsay Lohan offers a solid turn as does real life porn star, James Deen, but nobody does anything that you're going to love or remember the next day. Everyone's very mediocre, and due to how ridiculous the film eventually becomes, the characters all end up becoming rather comical.
Whilst the film does lack in its key areas, along with the cinematography, one of the aspects I liked was the score. I will be the first to admit that it does sound very amateurish, but the electronic nature of it occasionally works, with what the movie is trying to present. That presentation being that shouldn't have affairs, especially if you're dating a complete an utter psychopath.
I have to admit The Canyons was lot of better than I expected it to be. I didn't necessarily enjoy it, but there were aspects to it that I liked. Perhaps I'm being too nice, but for a low budget production I didn't find it too bad. If you have a partial interest in seeing it, see it. But if you don't, then I wouldn't bother.
5/10
Check out my website: www.jacks-reviews.com
Recently taken polls
1 total poll taken
