Timewaster's Guide Archive
Departments => Movies and TV => Topic started by: Nessa on June 25, 2008, 03:43:21 PM
-
http://www.timewastersguide.com/review/1662/WANTED
-
That's harsh.
But it was about what I expected. The commercials made me wonder why I would ever find this even mildly entertaining. 300, while overhyped, actually had some reasoning behind the brutality.
Was it better than Snakes on a Plane? ;)
-
Was it better than Snakes on a Plane? ;)
In all honesty, no. "Snakes on a Plane" was at least aware of how stupid it was. In it's own way, it was campy dumb fun (still, an awful movie, of course, but guilty pleasure dumb fun precisely because it was so bad) but "Wanted" just isn't fun.
-
That was a very well-written review--one I would expect to read in a publication (though they might have to cut for length). I really enjoyed reading it. I wasn't planning on seeing the movie anyway, but it's nice to know I won't be missing anything.
-
That was a very well-written review--one I would expect to read in a publication (though they might have to cut for length). I really enjoyed reading it. I wasn't planning on seeing the movie anyway, but it's nice to know I won't be missing anything.
Thank you. You made my day.
-
I considered seeing this movie when I heard McAvoy was in it... but I really don't want to put myself through something that bad.
Maybe you could just replace the movie with a read through of your review? I'm sure only a few people would be disappointed. ;) It at least was well written.
-
First I've got to say that I thoroughly enjoyed the review as well.
However, I enjoyed the film a ton more than Patrick. Everything he said about unbelievability and so forth is dead on, it just didn't bother me near as much as it did him. As for the acting, well, I didn't think it sucked THAT bad and I totally missed Freeman mugging the camera. (I may have been scrabbling for the last of the popcorn at that very moment, I don't know.)
Personally, I'd have given it a 3, maybe a 3.5.
-
Stars or clocks?
-
I totally missed Freeman mugging the camera. (I may have been scrabbling for the last of the popcorn at that very moment, I don't know.)
It was Freeman's last shot in the movie.
-
As for the acting, well, I didn't think it sucked THAT bad.
Some of the acting was not bad. In fact, some of it was good. McAvoy was very good, Krestschmann was very good (I didn't mention him much in my review for reasons that I'm sure Skar knows, having seen the film now), Jolie was adequate, though boring, and Freeman was very weak. Those last two are usually really good in everything, and that was big deal to me. And the rest of the cast was pretty bad, in particular David O'Hara as Wesley's father in the opening sequence. O'Hara gave very fine performances in "Braveheart" and "The Departed," and seeing him reduced to a one note snarling jackal made me ill.
In the end, I think Skar and more or less agree about the movie on most levels. I think we both feel that the deciding factor is simply whether or not you had any fun with it - I didn't, clearly he did. That's why, in the end, no review is in infallible.
-
Is there supposed to be an image with this article on the front page? I just see a question mark.
-
Stars or clocks?
Clocks, of course.
-
I totally missed Freeman mugging the camera. (I may have been scrabbling for the last of the popcorn at that very moment, I don't know.)
It was Freeman's last shot in the movie.
Oh, yeah. I see what you're talking about. I gave that one a pass though because by that point in the film they were into what I can only call a stylized epilogue where pretty much everyone was talking to the camera. You're right though, it's all about what you bring into the theatre.
-
Is there supposed to be an image with this article on the front page? I just see a question mark.
Ug. Sometimes the picture link from IMDB doesn't work. I'll have to download the pic to the TWG site.