First off let me start by saying that the most enjoyment I got from this movie was Mark Wahlberg. I've been a HUGE fan of the both musician turned actor Wahlberg brothers since day one. I'm talking about when a lot of people didn't even know these brothers were even acting. I think I've seen pretty much every budget to independent to mainstream movie to TV show these brothers have laid their hands on. Fear, Southie, Basketball Diaries, Runaway, Saw, Entourage, Boomtown... so for me I always get excited when Donnie and Mark are on the big or little screen.
Mark's walk and his swagger were the best things about this movie...Oh and his leather jacket too. I'm sorry but that is one fine ass white boy. That was it. I only knew that this film was based on a video game, and being a non-gaming kind of girl I had no clue about the plot. I had no idea what the plot was and it should be pretty much self explanatory to a point when watching a movie that if you don't know the background then you could pick it up pretty easily. I had no clue where this movie was going to, and if it was even going to get there.
If you want to know the plot spoilers and all go here.
I saw a 2 out of 5 stars in the paper and thought typically based on a crap rating from a critic then this movie will be excellent, as they never get it right. Even Mark Wahlberg said himself that although different, Max Payne would be a character to rival Batman if those two ever had a showdown. So when I read this a few months prior to seeing the movie on Friday night my interest was piqued that Mark is gonna be playing a badder than bad character. Great, I love to see cans of whoops ass just opened up in a good old fashioned good vs evil action flick. Boy was I unimpressed and Mark must have been on the stuff when he said that. Batman to me is the most boring superhero [good films, just boring superhero] and so is Max Payne as an action hero. So maybe they are similar just in a different way than what he was talking about.
Firstly, Max Payne isn't even all that of a bad man. He's just pissed off trying to find the third person responsible for killing his wife and child three years ago. I've seen more people just straight up angry for being short changed at the supermarket. I can't place the sole blame on Wahlberg because he played the character the best he could and it was a good performance, I just think he was let down by a shitty plot and direction to be honest.
Without being too direct when watching a movie I like to know two things specifically to set the scene:
Mark's walk and his swagger were the best things about this movie...Oh and his leather jacket too. I'm sorry but that is one fine ass white boy. That was it. I only knew that this film was based on a video game, and being a non-gaming kind of girl I had no clue about the plot. I had no idea what the plot was and it should be pretty much self explanatory to a point when watching a movie that if you don't know the background then you could pick it up pretty easily. I had no clue where this movie was going to, and if it was even going to get there.
If you want to know the plot spoilers and all go here.
I saw a 2 out of 5 stars in the paper and thought typically based on a crap rating from a critic then this movie will be excellent, as they never get it right. Even Mark Wahlberg said himself that although different, Max Payne would be a character to rival Batman if those two ever had a showdown. So when I read this a few months prior to seeing the movie on Friday night my interest was piqued that Mark is gonna be playing a badder than bad character. Great, I love to see cans of whoops ass just opened up in a good old fashioned good vs evil action flick. Boy was I unimpressed and Mark must have been on the stuff when he said that. Batman to me is the most boring superhero [good films, just boring superhero] and so is Max Payne as an action hero. So maybe they are similar just in a different way than what he was talking about.Firstly, Max Payne isn't even all that of a bad man. He's just pissed off trying to find the third person responsible for killing his wife and child three years ago. I've seen more people just straight up angry for being short changed at the supermarket. I can't place the sole blame on Wahlberg because he played the character the best he could and it was a good performance, I just think he was let down by a shitty plot and direction to be honest.
Without being too direct when watching a movie I like to know two things specifically to set the scene:
- Is it in the past, present or future?
- Where [location] is the story set?
Well I have no idea if it's present day, or not and it was in NY which looked soooooooo un-NY like I'd ever seen in a movie. A murder takes place in East Harlem, and you only know it's Harlem from the newspaper headline other than that I would have been clueless. That was not blasted Harlem, which led me to be confused again about the era in which this movie was set, whether present day or in the future. It's almost like whoever directed and produced this was under the assumption that everybody knew the Max Payne history from the video game and any other cinema goers simply had to catch up. I never knew the X-Men or Iron Man background but it was entertaining enough to know what was going on where and when.
I was glad to see my man from Prison Break, Sucre played by Amaury Nolasco in this role as the bad guy Lupino. He was the most convincing although I think a little underused in this movie. Too much of Beau Bridge's character B.B. and don't even get me started on Ludacris in this movie, what was up with the hat and the slight over acting that had the whole cinema crack up at one point...when you see it you'll know what I'm talking about.
Max Payne has the post credits 30 seconds like a lot of movies like Iron Man and X-Men: The Last Stand have. So stick around after the credits to see that if you go and see this movie. I think it's safe [or unsafe] to say there maybe a sequel to this dreadful film which led me to think was this film just slow at getting up off the ground on purpose to make way for an even better sequel or was it produced in the hope of being great and just simply wasn't?
I have a thing about movies, if there is a sequel and the first one I didn't rate that much or even like I have to go and see the second one in the hope that it will make me view the second installment with more of an open mind that this can actually go somewhere. Surely you can't have two pitiful movies back to back in Hollywood...or can you?
It was $35 million to make and made $65 million gross. I'm just happy that cost was recouped. The critics reviews definitely got back to the director [who wasn't happy] and if he has plans to make a sequel then he listens and takes notice. Go on message boards and see what the fans are saying. Hollywood must know by now that opinions by the fans help steer or even write the movies in a much more positive direction. Snakes on a Plane was one of them that had a huge influence and cult following before it's release from online regulars regarding the movie.
I've read some reviews on Flickster where I'm a member at, and what in God's name are those who gave it a 5/5 smoking? Best Action film? High Octane? They are lying. There was no balance. Too little action and when it happened it was like 'so what.' I ended up taking my Blackberry out of my bag and going on MySpace during one of the final action scenes. If I'm more gripped to my handheld device than guns going off then what is that saying?
I was glad to see my man from Prison Break, Sucre played by Amaury Nolasco in this role as the bad guy Lupino. He was the most convincing although I think a little underused in this movie. Too much of Beau Bridge's character B.B. and don't even get me started on Ludacris in this movie, what was up with the hat and the slight over acting that had the whole cinema crack up at one point...when you see it you'll know what I'm talking about.Max Payne has the post credits 30 seconds like a lot of movies like Iron Man and X-Men: The Last Stand have. So stick around after the credits to see that if you go and see this movie. I think it's safe [or unsafe] to say there maybe a sequel to this dreadful film which led me to think was this film just slow at getting up off the ground on purpose to make way for an even better sequel or was it produced in the hope of being great and just simply wasn't?
I have a thing about movies, if there is a sequel and the first one I didn't rate that much or even like I have to go and see the second one in the hope that it will make me view the second installment with more of an open mind that this can actually go somewhere. Surely you can't have two pitiful movies back to back in Hollywood...or can you?
It was $35 million to make and made $65 million gross. I'm just happy that cost was recouped. The critics reviews definitely got back to the director [who wasn't happy] and if he has plans to make a sequel then he listens and takes notice. Go on message boards and see what the fans are saying. Hollywood must know by now that opinions by the fans help steer or even write the movies in a much more positive direction. Snakes on a Plane was one of them that had a huge influence and cult following before it's release from online regulars regarding the movie.
I've read some reviews on Flickster where I'm a member at, and what in God's name are those who gave it a 5/5 smoking? Best Action film? High Octane? They are lying. There was no balance. Too little action and when it happened it was like 'so what.' I ended up taking my Blackberry out of my bag and going on MySpace during one of the final action scenes. If I'm more gripped to my handheld device than guns going off then what is that saying?
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.