|
|
score 2/10
It wasn't until I saw A-Team that I realized I never bothered to actually define what a movie is. So I went to Merram Webster online and found this: "a sequence of consecutive pictures of objects photographed in motion by a specially designed camera (motion-picture camera) and thrown on a screen by a projector (motion-picture projector) in such rapid succession as to give the illusion of natural movement." That was a perfect definition and exactly what I felt about A-Team. It was nothing but that. Someone threw images on a screen. There was sound, color, plenty of sensation and exaggeration, absurdity and nonsense. Amid all this I found several delightful performers who had the misfortune of having to portray characters who were forced to fit into a mess of "tossed-salad editing". I really did like the characters. But they could not rise above the crap all around them. Character development was horrible, story development was horrible, and having to change focus on highspeed mood shifts and plot shifts just became way too much of an intrusion on my intelligence. Sorry, I am not going to allow myself to give this trash any respect if I cannot get it from people who don't know how to make movies.
2 out of 10 out of sympathy and sorrow for a missed opportunity
MovieZoo 11 June 2010
Reprint: https://www.imdb.com/review/rw2262935/ |
|
22-11-2019 04:49:15
