Posts Tagged ‘Jason Statham’

The Meg” (2018) — movie review
The Meg” is basically a “Jaws” remake / update starring Jason Statham as Jonas Taylor.  It’s a science-fiction / action movie.  There are, of course, a bunch of other actors in the film, but the movie is really about Statham killing a big fish.  Unlike “Jaws“, where the other two main actors contributed to the story line, these folks are just chum or wanna-be chum.
A supposedly extinct “shark” (technically a “Megalodon”) gets free from its entrapped environment and kills some scientists.  Taylor escapes the attack and wallows in survivor guilt.  Shark / Meg starts attacking other people.  Taylor gets a call for help.  “No, no, no.  Okay, I’ll help.”  (Not the actual dialogue, but close enough…)
Shark / Meg continues to attack ships, people, whales, beaches, small dogs, more people.  Blah, blah, blah.  Taylor kills shark / Meg.  And they all lived happily ever after.
Is the movie any good as a “Jaws” remake?  Is it any good on its own?  No and yes.  Statham is okay in the lead role.  It’s not great acting, but it is serviceable.  The action scenes / special effects are ok to very good, but like most of these “larger-than-life” monster movies, the director / producers don’t quite settle on the size of the monster.   This is acceptable because it is so common.  Heck, even the original “Jaws” suffered from this problem.  For me, even though the updated effects were good, the movie lacked tension and really felt like it was just going through the motions for those who were too young to have seen the original.
Final recommendation: moderate to almost strong.  The action is ok.  The acting is ok.  The effects are ok to good.  The movie is what it is: “OK”.  The movie just flat out lacked the pizzazz / suspense of the original.  If you are going to watch this movie, view the original first.  It won’t detract from this version and you’ll get a grounding in understanding that better technology doesn’t always make a better movie (remake).  The movie is rated about a 4.5 on RottenTomatoes.com, which I think is probably a bit low.
On This Day In:
2018 Hoping For A Blue Wave In November
2017 Garden Dreaming
2016 Well, Maybe Not “No” Talent
2015 An Appetite For Life
A Trip To The Library
Great Expectations
2014 Pass The Soul
2013 Zapping Music And Art
2012 Not Quite Fantastic
That Kid Is Back
2011 Wolves At The Door
2010 I’m Feeling Patriotic… (Well, more than usual, anyway.)
Beating the Heat…

Read Full Post »

We can’t have a shoot-out without guns.  We’d lose.
—  the character “Handsome Rob” (played by Jason Statham)
From the film: “The Italian Job
[I have resisted making a comment on the tragic events at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, not because of I’ve no opinion, but because the thought of all those children and teachers being gunned down remains too horrific for me to wrap my head around.  It still is and I can’t sit and think of it too long without profound feelings of senseless loss.
The Second Amendment to the Constitution states: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
If we are to accept the National Rifle Association’s claim that every individual is entitled to any weapon they choose (irrespective of the weapon’s intended use or lethality) because “weapons don’t kill people, people kill people“, then we MUST accept that every inhabitant should also carry weapons just in case we happen upon an armed violent criminal or an armed unstable irrational person.
The NRA’s position is as logically absurd as is my extension to our logical reaction to their position.  Individuals seeking “the security of a free state” should not be placed in an unreasonable position of participating in a personal arms race to stay ahead of those who might harm us.  It is one thing to own a high-powered hunting rifle.  It is quite another to own an Uzi or a 50-cal machine gun, because your neighbor may own a mortar or an anti-tank weapon.  Where do we draw the line?
I am a defender of the Second Amendment and an individual’s right (“the right of the people“) to keep and bear arms.  I also believe in the statement “a well regulated militia“.  So, the people have a right to keep weapons, but the state has duty to regulate this right to the benefit of all concerned.  The framers of the Constitution had no concept of a modern day assault weapon (rifle or handgun or portable rocket launcher), let alone chemical weapons or tactical nuclear devices.  If they had, it seems to me they would have passed a very different amendment.
Can you HAVE a shoot-out, without guns?
Sometimes the only way to win is to not play the game…  This is the lesson of Tic-Tac-Toe.   —    KMAB]

Read Full Post »

%d bloggers like this: