quantumcat Reviews

Star Wars: Episode VIII - The Last Jedi (2017)

Disappointing,

[2/10 · 28 March 2018]

A sad day for Star Wars. And a good waste of money. The Last Jedi deserves every ounce of critique it has garnered over the last months.

It tries to be stylish and smart, elevating theme over story, which might work in an Indie movie, but in Star Wars rings hollow and pretentious. Especially when it's poorly executed.

Rian Johnson basically threw the baby out with the bathwater when decided not to continue with JJ Abrams's take. As a result the continuity errors and tonal differences are too big to ignore. Was Abrams movie hopeful, Johnsons take is nihilistic not even sparing Luke Skywalker's character, making his "hero's journey" all for naught. It also invalidates TFA, it's McGuffin, the last piece of the Map to Luke Skywalker, it's whole raison d'être, was to find Luke to train Rey. And now Luke doesn't want to be found and he doesn't want to train Rey -so why leave a map to be found? This is but one of the examples.

It lays bare what most of us feared when JJ Abrams was not to helm Episode VIII: There was no creative director to ensure continuity, tone and direction across three movies. RJ came in and flipped everything that JJ set up.

It's premise is laughably bad: the slowest chase in film history ever. It picks up right after TFA, which will creates issues with character arcs. It has major plot holes. It cannot keep up with it's own logic. It has pacing issues. Especially the Canto Bight sub plot. The plot is blatantly contrived, there is no natural from x follows y flow, all events that occur, all decisions made by the characters seem to be in service of the plot, even though the decision itself is ludicrous. There is no hero's journey, not for Rey, not for Finn, not for Rose, not for anybody. Rey waves a magic wand and is a Jedi. Making her officially a Mary Sue. There are too many porgs and porg-jokes. The movie tries to be too funny by launching too many jokes at the viewer, as a result the jokes are in general poorly timed, destroying the impact of a serious scene just before. The prank call by Poe in the beginning is funny, but would suit Peter Parker better, for Poe its like he's acting out of character . It also undermines the New Order. Making them seem weak and incompetent. The movie also tries to do things different, but ultimately fails. The character motivations are shallow and don't lead to any character growth. The twists (to do things differently) are more "gotchas!", without any real impact. They don't have a resonating pay off like "Luke, I am your father" had. And worst of all, it ends like the movie was a two parter. Our intrepid heroes are safe. There is no cliffhanger, no hooks, no lines, no slider that makes you want to go and watch Episode IX.

At the end of the day, The New Trilogy isn't doing anything new. They conveniently set the story up, that it's a small rebellion against a big mean bully and TLJ tries to drive this home by decimating the Resistance (apparently that was all it was), because the Millenium Falcon is too small to take everyone on board and fly everyone to safety at the end of the movie..

Now there are some positives. The music, the art direction, the visuals, the acting , the action. It's all stunning, Gorgeous, Masterful, but too much Michael Bay to me: style over substance. Smoke and mirrors.

I know there are people that loved this movie, and I tried not to summarize all examples I can think of, of continuity mistakes etc, but this movie kept pulling me out of my suspension of disbelief. I normally accept movie-logic for what it is and enjoy the ride, but this movie failed miserably in doing so

Dolphins and Whales 3D: Tribes of the Ocean (2008)

disappointing

[6/10 · 26 October 2014]

Beautiful shot. Stunning visuals. But Short. Too short. Incoherent. It jumps from whale to whale to dolphin. It even has a manatee cameo (it's called whales & dolphins...not sea mammals?) It doesn't seem to have a clear goal of narration. Boring. Yes- I found the narration dull and lifeless. Didn't give much information, -sounded more like filler material. I had hoped to new insights to whales & dolphins, never before seen events, I dunno...something Cousteau? The environmental message to preachy. And on top of that delivered flat. I think the emphasis was on 3D -not on whales & dolphins. Not the worst,but not one worthy of the name Cousteau either.

Rise of the Dinosaurs (2013)

too flawed to really enjoyable

[3/10 · 29 July 2013]

What do we have: -really REALLY bad acting -really REALLY bad editing -really REALLY bad sfx -really REALLY bad writing

Bad was to be expected. but the really REALLY bad, took my by surprise. I have weakness for bad monster movies, some, like dinocroc, frankenfish, abominable, shark attack, komodo, to name a few that turn out to be quite enjoyable. Unfortunateky, this one isn't. I managed to watch it till the end, so it's not a complete loss, but this one has too many flaws.

The only enjoyable performance was by Micheal Worth as an absent minded, offset, hippie professor. The others have the emotional range of an ironing board...they're not even trying.

The writing doesn't help either -unfortunately, because of the wooden acting, the dialogues fail to be funny. There isn't any real chemistry between any of the actors, the lead is as inspiring as a leader as a crash test dummy, the antagonist took acting lessons from Jar-Jar Binks, and the others walk around as if a blind man gave directions.

More so, a T-Rex can be easily killed with a pea-shooter -though later on they use an RPG -you gotta have an explosion as a climax -explosions always work as a climax. right? Smart & Intelligent velociraptors run into a hail of bullets like mindless zombies, and the military rescue subplot seems as if someone thought that if it worked for predator, it will work for this movie. Sorry to disappoint you.

I mean the story is all over the place, terrorist commie guerrillas, hostage hot female bio-chemist, colonel vs. suit at hq, bio-chemical virus / agent being released, the nutty professor, the rescue team, the history between commie guerrilla leader and the rescue team-leader, and then there are the dinosaurs..they are...well just there.

On top of that, the special effects are truly bad -in fact stop motion in 1933 didn't have such jerky movements that for this budget they should have concentrated on fewer dinosaurs and betters animations. The models aren't that bad, but they look badly integrated, unfinished and badly animated. Not to imagine the fake blood and fake muzzle flashes.

It makes you wonder who gives the go ahead for this. Have they read the script? Have they any knowledge of movie (making)? Do they care?

I never understand why the writer(s) feel the need to put so much into what is -plain and simple- the ten little ... I mean the "and then there were none" (to use the more pc title) plot trick. All you need is 9 tourists and one pilot that crash into a remote place, ruled by dino's. The professor can be used for exposition and you have a pack of raptors hunting the 11 men and women. Picking them off one by one, climaxing in a showdown between (wo)man and alpha (fe)male.with some movies - especially monster movies- I prefer the KISS approach. Keep It Simple Stupid. oh well...

Dungeons & Dragons (2000)

not THAT bad.... Flawed, yet entertaining

[5/10 · 27 January 2009]

Having bought the DVD recently for a euro or five form a bargain bin, I realize that this isn't such a bad movie.

Sure, it has some things going against it: 1: Marlon Wayans, occasionally funny.but in general more annoying than Jar-Jar BINKS. 2: Bruce Paynes blue lips 3: Too many dragons, too few dungeons 4: SFX/CGI that seemed to be taken from PS(2) cut-scenes 5: A Council. A (rebelious) Princess. A princess which a dress and hairstyle to match for each scene. A very annoying sidekick. Where have I seen that before... Oh yes...Episode I.

Some extra comments: 3: it's called dungeons and dragons. Have you seen any dungeons? Right. Thought so. Dragons we see in abundance. But so many that you start to wonder, whether it would have been better to limit it to only a few good rendered CG dragons, instead of 100 mediocre rendered CG dragons. 4: See previous comment. Though, since it is a low-budget film, compared to e.g. Episode I, so I won't hold it against them.

Flaws I can live with: 1: Campy acting, somebody mentioned Xena. True that! 2: poor SFX, not everybody is called George Lucas 3: flawed script; remember episode I. II and III? My point exactly.

Seeing the movie after almost 8 years, I find the movie isn't that bad. Sure, it's no Oscar material, and maybe not Cinema material, but I find it better than Eragon. For the first time I watched it without being (too) judgmental. And I must admit that I found the movie entertaining. Flawed as it is, the acting is decent, the SFX are okay and the script actually makes sense enough to seem to be a logical stream of events (note the use of the verb: "seem")

In short: it kept me busy for an evening without feeling I wasted my time.

Legend of Dinosaurs and Monster Birds (1977)

Incredibly cheese, flawed to the bone and yet great fun!

[7/10 · 26 January 2009]

This must be the pinnacle of cheesy Japanese monster movies. I'm not even sure I saw this when I was a child. I remember picking up a review on the internet after googling for reviews of other Kaiju films.

The plot follows the lines of JAWS (or any other man-eating monster is loose movie), so it's not really a Kaiju like Gojira or Gamera.

*****may contain Spoilers**** Basically its centres around one of the lakes or mount Fuji, where legend has it a red-eyed dragon lives; hence the red-eyed dragon boat festival.

A lot of strange geo-related activities occurs prior to this festival. Earthquakes, temperatures rising, old caves suddenly exposed ... get where this is going?

Our protagonist has a history with this lake, or actually his father had. he claimed a living pleisiosaur lived in the lake -kind of like the Loch Ness Monster. Why else would there be a red-eyed water dragon legend? Of course nobody believed him. Not even his son. His son, however, as more inexplicable things happen, starts to wonder whether he should have doubted his farther.

he meets a former flame of his who's diving in the lake because of some project.

Then people start to disappear...

*********************************************************************

Unfortunately, the plot is full of holes. Of course, any good monster flick should be, but still... -The protagonist is a silent, closed man up to the point of being grumpy. Why does the lead lady fall in love with him again? Or...why should we, the audience, like him? But that may be Japanese cinematography for you... -The legend of the red-eyed water dragon is underused. -The female lead does ...well only get in trouble so our protagonist can be the hero. Nothing new here, but I found it a bit too much. -where in h#ll does the flying monster come from? The pleisiosaur - the red-eyed dragon I understand, but the rhamphornycus?? It it was a flying red-eyed water dragon I could understand people mistaking two creatures for one... -strange adult-movie-music during the first graphical attic. Some of it should have made the scenes look artistic, but a bombastic the monster is here to eat you music instead of the if you close your eyes you'd think John Holmes is at it music. Not to mention the 70's disco-tune when the rhamphornycus and pleisiosaur make their appearance and start attacking people independent -and eventually each other. But that may be Japanese cinematography for you... -the plot builds up to an all out monster fest, but the monsters appear too late in the movie -for my taste. This was the biggest downer for me.

These things do not make it a worse movie than it already is, but it could have made it better. A better cheesy monster flick.

This movie is still a must see for fans of cheesy monster flicks! The monster effects are fantastic...ally cheesy. The monster fights are ... over the top cheesy ... What else can I say, I enjoyed it. BIG TIME!

And if you like cheesy Japanese monster movies, I know you will too...

Skinwalkers (2006)

Not a bad action movie, but disappointing as a werewolf vehicle

[6/10 · 9 January 2009]

Where it all goes wrong. I watched this movie -cut for PG reasons- and it was entertaining. Butit doesn't do all that well. I can understand why people bash this movie and why people like this movie. For that I rate it average.

Pros: decent action movie with a fast paced story, solid script, brawls, shoot outs and explosions. Cons: it's an action movie, with occasional -occasional- werewolf action (Except the grand finale).

This is not your typical werewolf horror movie, in fact it focuses on being an action movie. The other thing is that all the werewolf's look like descendants of the wolf man. Yes, bipedal, furry, and most of all... very human-like. They could have been Bigfoots cousins. It does keep the women sexy, as far as sexy can go with furry human like-creatures... But somehow it's not scary enough. You don't even get to see one descent changing scene.

Maybe we have been spoiled rotten by "an American werewolf in London"(AWIL) and by "the Howling"(TH) and even by the CG aided "Underworld" or Indies as "Ginger Snaps" and "Dog Soldiers", on both the changing scene and on werewolf design.

But bipedal hairy humans that resemble as much as Quest for Fire Caveman as Bigfoot that don't even have wet noses... The upside is, the actors -even though hairy- are still recognizable, so the wolf man look could have been used on purpose.

I may be nagging about this ...but c'mon: "STAN WINSTON STUDIOS PRESENT" and Creature effects by "STAN WINSTON STUDIOS"

What I am trying to say is, that the werewolf theme raises the bar a bit high, since you'd expect horror and wereWOLF and in your face man-wolf changes, because what has all been done earlier in AWiL and in TH and similar movies, not even mentioning the involvement of "STAN WINSTON STUDIOS" And the movie fails to deliver all this. So ... for a werewolf movie ... very disappointing.

Bottom line: For an action movie with supernatural twist, it's actually a pretty good movie! For a werewolf movie ... poo happens

Shut Up & Sing (2006)

Scary documentary

[8/10 · 8 January 2009]

I watched this in my hotel room. And really it scared me. It's very good entertaining documentary, that starts off with a good concert in the UK by the Dixie Chicks in the UK at the eve of the second Gulf War.

Instead of saying thank you and goodbye, one of the D-girls speaks her heart and speaks up against the pending war, which the Britisch press gladly covers.

When it hits the American Press, the controversy is a fact and a riot is born that is just a tad shy of the Nazi book-burning in the late 30's for dissing the President of America. Apparently everything is Free, except the freedom of speech. Songs are banned from the radio stations, CD's are destroyed.

This documentary follows the three years of heavy weather the three D-girls landed in and the swimming upstream in which they mature as a band.

I personally liked the documentary, it's filled with great and catchy country music, it's funny, witty, endearing and because you get a nice insight to the Dixie Chicks, to who they are and what moves them. You also get a scary insight to the USA, in what seems a funny political satire, but which sadly isn't so ... it's real. That what makes it scary! This is "Canadian Bacon" meets "This is Spinal Tap" on reality TV!

I wouldn't recommend people to go buy the DVD, but catch it on TV if you get the chance!

I said this, since I'm not a big fan of rockumentaries on DVD. The only ones I ever bought were (for obvious reasons): "This is Spinal Tap", "Meet the Ruttles" and "I'm Not There". (if not obvious: they 're not real documentaries, the first two are mocumentaries, the latter is a collection of surreal impression based on several phases in Dylans life, portrayed through actors, rather than running after Dylan with a camera all the time)

Apparently the movie made a bigger impact than expected. So: Correction: do go and buy the DVD if you missed this on TV!

Guardians (2009)

OMG it's worse than "Connie & Carla"

[2/10 · 2 January 2009]

This is a bad movie. It fails on every turn. It's not even a 'good' bad movie -like TROMA (mostly) makes. I don't care that they borrow from Aliens, nor that they borrow from Evil Dead with a mix of MIB and the mist... I don't care if movies are unoriginal, or predictable. I don't care if they have poor CGI, I can put up with decent Sfx, not everyone has the funds to hire ILM, I can put up with bad acting. I want movies to be fun, you know: entertaining. For that, they don't have to be picture perfect.

Guardians fails on every front. what's killing is the screenplay. The pacing is ... well off the mark, it's illogical, the plot has no sense of direction and (ergo) is very difficult to understand, it is as if instead of editing the lenghty bits out, someone simply pressed ">>|". I know most bad movies have plot holes large enough to sink the Titanic, but the storyline is generally easy to follow. With guardians ...

I am a big fan of bad horrorsflics ... this one nearly broke my heart...

Dune (1984)

Read the book first: Great movie, but objectively a movie with flaws ... major flaws

[6/10 · 29 August 2008]

Dune is a success and failure in one. It fails to translate the book. It succeeds in bringing the world of Dune to life through wonderfully imaginative set designs, costume design and special effects and music (Toto!!!).

The makers decided to cut away all background story and focus on the action. This is where all falls down.

By cutting away that much, a fast paced action movie is created. Why ? Probably because at that time (the eighties) cinema movies seldomly reached past 120 minutes. In theory, a fast paced movie is a good thing. It won't bore your audience to death.,

In case of Frank Herbert's Dune, you lose so much of the background story, you end up with a fast paced story nobody understand.

Frank Herbert 's Dune was deemed unfilmable. I disagree. It is unfilmable in 90 to 120 minute film. Like Tolkiens LOTR. I think both books share something in common. Their world is so rich, not only in events but in information that these books have long been seen as unfilmable. I think Peter Jackson proved everybody wrong (though he made some dubious plot changes and decisions in the Two Towers). Books as these are so rich, you need to take as much time as you need to tell the story. Another example is Eragon. By trying to stay within the 100 minute limit, you get the book in fast-forward view!

Back to Dune: I fell in love with this movie, because loved the acting, sets, costumes, general atmosphere. It is Dune come to life. And I read the book first. By having read the book first, I knew all there is to know. And the movie goes down easily. If you do not possess this knowledge, you end up distracted from the action because you have no clue what is going on and why. You watch 130 minutes of action and at the end a girl points at Paul Muad'Dib Atreides and shouts: "he is the kwisatz haderach" and you go... who? What? What is a kwasawhat?

The SE DVD gives you a lot of extra informations and insights to dune universe politics, groups and people. These are accompanied with music and what looks like concept art. But it is vital information for those who have not read the book. I think this adds to the film, making it a richer experience. Similar like the added scenes in LOTR.

I found both versions impressive and entertaining. Please note that the SFX are from the 80s and cannot be compared to nowadays CGI, although theses SFX are much better than most TV series CGI. CGI is the magic word nowadays, but CGI is only as good as the budget.

For those unfamiliar with Dune, I recommend the SE, if you are prepared to invest 3 hours of your life. I think it's worth it.

i

The Beastmaster (1982)

Awesome!!!

[8/10 · 23 August 2008]

I loved this film when I was a kid, and I still love it. I loved the beastmaster angle: the protagonist can communicate with animals. The animals themselves are pretty impressive: a big tiger (painted black to "play" a panther, though in the sequel, it is an unpainted tiger), an eagle and two (europea) polecats as comic relief.

I don't think purists will be happy about what they did to Andre Nortons novel - I can imagine. The rewrote it until the only thing they shared was that it was about a man that could communicate with animals.

To jump on the barbarian movies revival bandwagon, started by Conan, they relocated it to a time (and place, if you want to believe the sequel), which is similar to Conans. There are kings & queens -even though the land seems lawless and their power to rule the land is very limited, as the evil sorcerers power is way bigger. There are witches, magic, demons, and there is even a young boy that needs to find its place in the world by fulfilling his destiny.

There is basically nothing in there that Andre Norton wrote, except a man that could communicate with animals.

Though it sounds like a copy or a bad rip-off, and one of the worst novel-to-book conversion (Coscarelli would later redeem himself with Bubba-Hotep) the movie is actually very good and highly entertaining. The acting is pretty good, even though the actors may not have been the most known ones at that time.

Granted, the plot is not always the most complicated one around. But hey, it's sword and sorcerers! Who cares about unexpected plot devices? This movie has beautiful damsels in distress, it has love, it has a bit of horror, it has fast paced action, it has a good score with a catchy theme and it has a happy end. All that is needed in this genre.

King Kong (1976)

worth watching

[6/10 · 14 July 2008]

People seem to bash this movie a lot. For good reasons. it is desperately inferior to the original.

As a kid, I liked this one, though I preferred the original, sure it's in Colour, Stereo (now 5.1) and it has "better" special effects.

True: The man-in-a-suit approach doesn't always work, but so does stop motion. It is maybe the best they could have come up with in the seventies, without having to call in Ray Harryhausen.

The actors are good, there's nothing wrong with the acting. the music by John Barry has you thinking James Bond'll show up any minute and rescue the girl. Alas

I think the biggest problem with this movie is the script.

The pacing is too slow and doesn't have a lot of action... or monsters. But boy, do we want to see the inhabitants of Kong island! Especially with the new and improved special effects.

After seeing this movie after so many years, I realize they tried to make the characters believable, with each a credible reason to set foot on king island. The result, is a slow start, which is just bearable not to fast forward the movie. And when they reach Kong Island, the biggest disappointment, is the lack of inhabitants for Kong to fight with. When Kong's finally captured (after 1,5 hrs of movie, you still have about 45 minutes before he falls to his Death from the World Trade Centre.

Okay, I know, also long and at times slow. but that version succeeded in making the slow bits compelling enough not to lose interest. And it had a lot of Kong's island and creatures.

Having said that, the 1976 version is not as bad as some people want you to believe. it's not as good as some want you to believe either. I think it's a mediocre attempt in to remaking a classic. The resulting movie is worth to watch!

Bugs (2003 TV Movie)

Not THAT bad

[5/10 · 1 July 2008]

Okay, is this movie bad. yes. BUT WHAT WOULD YOU EXPECT PEOPLE!!! C'mon! And for a bad movie it's not that a bad movie. I've seen movies with bigger budgets that are worse!

The writing is formulaic, but fast paced. And like someone commented, no distracting love plots, scenes or whatever. Simply straight to the point action.

The SFX aren't that bad. lemme put it this way: it's a low budget movie. Don't go expecting ILM, WETA CGI or Stan Winston/Rob Bottin/Chris Walas SFX. But still - it's decent enough to do the trick.

The acting is mediocre at best, but again...its low budget! It's no Oscar material, but they do a decent job!

So where does that leave us:

BUGS is a movie that does what movies in it's class/genre should do. No more, no less. Don't go expecting more. At least it's not less, like "octopus" (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0221905/) or shark attack 25 ;-)

If you like silly monster flicks, it will entertain you for about 80 minutes. Grab your popcorn and set you mind to zero. Don't think, watch, enjoy ;-)

Until Death (2007)

OMG... a good van damme film???? Actually worth watching!!!

[7/10 · 12 April 2008]

I must admit, I only saw the last 30-45 minutes on Dubai TV or some other movie channel you can receive in the GULF. But I was taken a back on how good it was- For a Van Damme straight to video.

I liked the story line, the atmosphere - and hey - Van Damme seems to have picked up a few acting lessons along the way. All the other actors do their best (or at least: not their worst!) I could not stay myself from watching the through!!! Maybe it's not a McTiernan film, and maybe not original, but somehow it seems to work! And we don't see van damme as a martial arts fighting machine, but as a normal cop with a (bad) history, walking around with melancholic guilt-ridden face. Hey - what a welcome change !! Honestly: definitely worth watching!!!

The Guyver (1991)

What a bad movie.... I LOVE IT!!!!

[6/10 · 3 August 2007]

Whether I am biased because of it's Japanese influences, whether I am biased because I like (bad) monster movies, or whether I like it because it to campy to put into words....I don't know, maybe all of the above.

I think last night was the first time I saw the guyver -live action movie. I did see the sequel (dark hero), but that was released on video here in Holland.

I don't know how to rate this movie. The bad: -the acting is poor -the dialogs are poor -the plot could have been better -the fights are not bad -eighties feel to it. The baddies are a eighties -punk-steetgang-esque group. AND THIS IS A 1991 MOVIE!!!!

The good: -The dialogues are hilariously bad -It has humor, almost self-relating humour -the acting almost seems bad on purpose, like it was meant to be cliché. It gives a kind of flair to the movie. -the fights are awsesomely choreographed, in a funny, power-ranger kind of way. -The monsters are awesome, great designs, great suits ...at least we can tell where the budget went -The special effects aren't that bad, given it's time (early nineties, pre-Jurassic park) and it's budget -jeffrey combs & mark hamill I hate to say it. Against better judgment: I love it. Don't expect duel of the fates darth maul vs obiwan kenobi & Quigon Jin like fights, but the fights serve their purpose well and handsomely convey the campy feel to it. So does the bad acting ... in the end, it is still a bad movie, but I have seen worse, with bigger budgets...

I rate it a 6 out of 10. Somethings are well done, others unspeakably poor, but in the end, it has good entertaining value. If you like this kind of movies. If you're not into low(er) budget movies ...

Eragon (2006)

Fantasy Fast Food Snack: Like watching Paolini's Novel in fast-forward

[6/10 · 13 May 2007]

I love the Inheritance books, so I naturally was delighted that they were made into a movie, probably to cash in on the door the Lord Of The Rings (by Peter Jackson -yes I mean the LOTR movies!) opened.

But somehow they missed the mark, badly. Of course, since LOTR set the standard, it's easily compared and since LOTR was pretty darn good, a unfair comparison. Mostly. There is one big comparison that is important, I will get to it shortly.

To me the acting is OK, it felt forced at some points, but it felt that most of the flaws in acting could be traced back to a bad screenplay.

What is so bad about this screenplay, this script? (I am not the first one to comment). I can imagine characters will be cut, scenes will be cut... for instance the Tom Bombadil sequence in LOTR. Where Eragon's script goes wrong is that the makes/producers/writers cling onto the 100 minute limit with their lives. In case or LOTR, a nearly 3 hour feature, they have created time to bring the world alive, to have the actors become their characters, to introduce the characters and to actually have them do something, like character building, bond, grow friendships. Not so in Eragon. It's like Paolini's novel in fast-forward. As for a result, the character of Murtagh is magically pulled out of the Hat, the actor is given a few lines that feel blurted out rather than acted and suddenly he's the son of some bad guy and Eragon is the hero of the day. It's like watching David Lynch's Dune all over. There is an attack, Kyle and his mother find shelter at the fremen, he rides a worm, then attack the fortress, win suddenly Kyle is the Messiah (???).

***spoilers ahead*** This happens with all characters. They are barely introduced do something and at the end of the movie you think ... what is Arya ...princess of what? Actually..."WHO" is she and what is she to Eragon? Who was this Nasuada? (I don't even think she is mentioned by name, I had the subtitles for the hearing impaired on). Brom seems to be an old drunkard/trapper living in the past, suddenly he's an ex-dragon rider, and in the little man-to-man time with Eragon he's grumpy, arrogant but when he dies Eragon mourns him (for the little time the screenplay gives him) like an surrogate father or older brother. This rushed pace leaves no room for the actors to get into character and give the performance needed to capture the audience.

I still rate it a six because I had a good evening watching the movie, and I enjoyed it nonetheless, but it feels more like a fantasy fast-food snack than a good old fashion fantasy flick like Conan, Willow, LOTR, the Beastmaster, the Princess Bride and so on.

Definitely a missed chance. Shame

The Pink Panther (2006)

where's Kato when you need him!

[5/10 · 30 June 2006]

I've read a lot of things about not to compare this movie with the "originals" that make a lot of sense. There is also the fact that I've seen this movie on the plane to Tehran, so I might want to give it another try.

In the back of my mind, of course I was comparing old vs new, realizing that Martin isn't Sellers and Kline isn't Lom. Even with that knowledge, there was not much to laugh for me. I wasn't thrilled when I heard that Steve Martin was going to play Clouseau, I like Steve martin movies, except father of the bride, cheaper by the dozen and bringing down the house, but still - I had serious doubts: Blake Edwards tried to get the Pink Pather show running - three times after Sellers untimely death and failed, so why should anyone else succeed where even the master failed? Was this movie doomed to fail?

***Thought on old vs new*** *****Note that this may contain spoilers.***** I couldn't find Steve Martin funny. was he acting as Clouseau opposed to being Clouseau? was he miscast? ( was "his" version unlikable? (i.e. character traits) was the screenplay -material poor to begin with?

In any case, I couldn't be bothered with this person, I felt no connection that should make me want to follow his adventures.

I couldn't find Kevin Kline funny. Was he miscast? Was he on auto-pilot? Didn't he had good material to work with from the start? Who knows.

the only real comparison to the old movies: Where was Kato??? The fights were the pinnacle of absurdities in the Pink Panther series. There could have been at least one in there, as an homage.

The thing is, that I find this movie mediocre at best. I encountered four jokes I could laugh aloud at:

***spoilers*** one around "doing the Heimlich" on his secretary -which could have topped with a comment about a (proverbial) pain in the bottom. one around a cameo with Clive Owen one around Clouseau's idea of "camouflage" one in the end when you finally see the translation of what the Chinese lady during the interrogation said.

all the others brought a mere faint of a beginning smile to my face.

Positive things: I liked his Secretary (Nicole) and Jean Reno as his partner. I kept watching till the end so it wasn't as bad as "Connie & Carla"? To me it was a mediocre comedy. No ROFL's, no LOL's -just a smile.

Land of the Dead (2005)

GOOD Zombie Movie of The Master (no spoilers): the Dead Finally Returned To Romero

[8/10 · 2 April 2006]

Let nobody spoil your fun: this is an enjoyable movie, with a little or more social satire in it.

at first I was afraid the gore would be toned down to make the PG12 rating (as they did with Resident Evil),since it had the trailer had a mainstream-budget feel to it, but thank god Romero stuck to his guns, and while not as much gore as the independent Dead Trilogy, it had more than a mainstream movie and most of all: more than enough to keep a Dead-fan like me happy.

I was also afraid that being the next installment of the Dead Series this movie could only disappoint. I can tell you it didn't. And while some complain about having no atmosphere, the atmosphere wasn't in shock-horror, I felt it in the post-apocalyptic feel of hopelessness and despair as well as in the way people viciously clung to their former lives - though useless their lives still revolved around green bits and paper once highly values as money, now -unconsciesly- high regarded as an icon for a life as it was before.

Forget Dawn Of The Dead(2004) , with the good start and disturbing ending (but oh-so boring middle piece with that fateful A-Team moment (Ving Rhames did a good MrT impersonation) which killed any horror-atmosphere left) Though flawed I found the dead rightfully returned to the rightful owner: Romero.

8 out of 10 for entertainment and gore and a good movie!

The Village (2004)

Not the bad movie people make it out to be, but I can understand why they are disappointed

[8/10 · 27 January 2005]

there may be spoilers up ahead, but I'll try to steer away from them:

I am one of those that appreciate "the village" When I started to watch the movie I'd expected a see a second "Signs" (which was by it's ridiculous "man-in-a-suit" ending a bit disappointing after the tension had been so brilliantly built up)

What I noticed right away was the beautiful cinematography which excels in subtlety. The same can be said about the acting. Greatly scored as well.

Again it had subtle and brilliant built up of tension. Shymalan's trademark. Was it to be a standard Shymalan movie *****sort-of-spoiler:*****

Then at a third of the movie it had a man in a suit moment

Because of the acting, the cinematography I decided to continue watching. Shymalan takes a lot of time introducing his characters, which makes them 3D persons and give the actors the chance to give it their best. It also makes you -the viewer- want to see what happens to them next.

Then the creatures show up again -again my man-in-a-suit-fear became true, was this to be the real horror of this movie?

I felt disappointed -this is not the horror thriller I thought it was.

But then there was this moment -all but silence save the score..."Howard holds out her hand while the creature runs towards her, and Phoenix grabs it and they go foe the trapdoor to the cellar almost like a couple of ballerina's -reminescent of Chinese movies like "Crouching Tiger" or "House of the Flying Daggers"

In all the events following it started to dawn: this movie isn't the horror-thriller I'd expected but a well played =well directed -well scored -well written drama-thriller.

So the more plot becomes clear the more you understand this transformation from apparently horror to psycho-drama-thriller. Though I felt the clue was not entirely unexpected and a bit unbelievable, I was fascinated.

It is in my opinion people think it a bad movie since they expected a horror-thriller and got a psychological-drama-thriller.

So all-in-all I think it's a great movie that disappoints due to expectations that were falsely raised by a misleading PR campaign.

So if you watch this movie with either NO expectations or with the knowledge it's a psychological-thriller-drama you're in for a wonderfully cinematographically styled , ingeniously scored and brilliantly acted show!

Have fun!

Anacondas: The Hunt for the Blood Orchid (2004)

Not too good, not too bad; very funny though

[3 November 2004]

Let me begin to say that on the whole as a "bad creature feature" this movie is surprisingly good!

NOTE THAT THERE WILL BE SPOILERS IN THIS REVIEW!!!

As a thriller or horror flick, it's unbelievably bad.

Also: research was bad: first of all: Anaconda's (and Macaus!!! and black howler monkeys) IN BORNEO?? Secondly : snakes do not make sounds when hunting, not the catlike noises (in this movie the snake makes a noise that is a mix between a rattler and the blowing of a cat), they DO make that noise when threatened. Third: Anacondas are so immensely large THEY HAVE TO STAY IN THE WATER. so that the buoyant force supports them. They're not helpless on land but their not the Carl Johnson sprinters the makers want you to believe and with that size a 60-80ft anaconda wont be crawling up a tree, especially towards the smaller ends of the branches. I believe that they'd better taken the reticulated python instead of the anaconda. Forth: the models (CGI or no) in the first anaconda were truly life like in the sense that for realism they could have put it in the mme Tussauds museum. In this movie the head is not the anaconda head but kind of generally shaped as if you were describing the concept of snake, not depicting the anaconda

There are too many clichés and even the actors seem to ramble their terribly written lines as if the couldn't believe themselves how awful it is. Some plots are just annoying an continuity is a mess.

***********SPOILER************************************************ There were some great laugh, the Jaws theme (underwater, camera zooming in in legs) with accompanying music was hilarious, Even the ending is as ridiculous as the rest of the movie. In the pouring rain one snake grabs a can of gasoline (2 liters or so?) (kind of like the jaws ending) and spills it over himself and the snakes that lie 30 ft below him. Our hero's fry the snake of course and on tumbling down it ignites the spilled gasoline resulting in an explosion so large it causes a landslide .... ********************************************************************* Because it holds true to the "bad creature features" principle and having a little more budget then most "bad creature features", it is one of the better "bad creature features". That doesn't make it a good movie though.

Too bad, it could have been lots better

Monster! (1999 TV Movie)

Great Movie

[3 November 2004]

I like this movie; I always like bad creature features, so I rented this one. As it turns out to be, it's one of the better onces I've seen

To me it watches like an ode to the (early) 50's monster movies (e.g. the Blob, with Steve McQueen) so instead of having the cliché's dragging the movie down, the writer(s) turn(s) the effect of the clichés around, by putting them to good use; kind of like Wes Craven did in "Scream". SO in this case: the hero drives a Hot Rod and wears his school' Jock jacket and so...

Next to that , the acting is good, the pace is fast, tension is built as tension should built, the special effects look great (given the age, the budget AND the fact that it's a TV movie).

I'll be honest: it's not "predator" , it's not "the eye". it's a small flick with good acting, good story with a great pitch that makes it stand out from the rest. All you need as a good evening's entertainment!

Crimewave (1985)

Not for the average movie go-er

[20 October 2004]

I just received this movie on DVD YES YES YES !!! I must have seen it some 10 odd years a go and I finally have it on DVD! (it's Chinese release, English track with Chinese subtitles -got it through amazon, for all you want the movie in their collection)

This movie really deserves a proper DVD release, I had hoped, like Peter Jackson's "Bad Taste" got it's well deserved DVD after Jackson made fame with LOTR trilogy, the same fate would befall "Crimewave" after Raimi had finished "Spiderman". But alas...

Now what to think of this movie: I liked it, but I have a soft spot when it comes to Sam Raimi movies I loved it, but I always liked "weird movies" I Enjoyed it, but I always enjoy movies that the Coen Brothers have made (though they didn't direct this one)

This was suppose to be a main audience feature that Raimi was allowed to make after "Evil Dead" -if I'm correct- The main problem with this movie is that it's most definitely not. It's too cartoony, too slapstick, too caricatural to be so. It's like watching a real live action Tom & Jerry cartoon that has a bad case Three Stooges influences and the flashback style is soo weird, it almost seems incoherent and Raimi's visual style is to typical to describe and the humour won't be appreciated by everybody.

All and all I think the makers did a good job, okay it may not be greatest movie ever and the actors may not have give their best Oscar winning performances (unless it's terribly hard to play such wooden caricatures :-P, but I'm not an actor so I can't tell) but it's a fun movie to watch.

For all the weirdness, strange black humour, the caricatural and cartoony-three-stooges-tom & jerry-style is what makes it different from the average movie, it has an original script and the cartoony visual style is refreshing, it's recognisable cartoonish BUT with a Sam Raimi twist (as he will display in Evil Dead II and Army Of Darkness later on).

If this isn't a problem and you're not the kind of person that thinks "Pearl Harbor" was an instant classic and "behind enemy lines" (owen Wilson) was a "beautiful movie, you gotta have on DVD" and if you loved "Bubba Hotep" or(and) enjoyed "Army Of Darkness" or (and) laughed your behind off watching "Rasing Arizona", this may be a movie for you.

If all of the above didn't appeal to you, I still would recommend to watch it anyway (because I enjoyed it very much) -you are warned now! though I'm afraid you still won't like it: prove me wrong :-P

The Keep (1983)

Perhaps I was lucky not to have read the book first

[2 September 2004]

I read "Nightworld" btw which is a sequel of some form,

I find "the keep" a great movie and though I must admit storywise its as bad as dune (they cut out so much bakgroundstory you can only understand the movie if you read the book) -it is still on of my favorites.

I guess it's the way Mann uses images and electronic sounds. It gives the Keep all it's (creepy) atmosphere and its weirdness to want to watch till the end. Perhaps it is a bit expressionistic. I loved it.

Perhaps this is one of those ya-either-love-it-or-hate-it-movies.

So I suggest: go and watch -then decide .

8/10 for style, visual vision/style and image/sound combination

Around the World in 80 Days (2004)

Hey, it's a Jackie Chan Movie (if you think you're going to watch a good book adaptation you'll be dreadfully disappointed)

[22 August 2004]

I went to this movie coz there wasn't anything else I either wanted to see, or hadnt' seen. But hey, it's a jackie chan movie.

As I had expected I enjoyed this movie. It was entertainment. C'est ca. And that's all.

*spoiler alert* I must agree with all of you on most accounts, yes it's not what Jools had in mind, and yes he would weep for 80 days. Yes -if you strip it it's the same sweet yuckie friends stick together kind of movie we've all seen before.

But the movie is entertaining nonetheless: I was enchanted by Cécile De France (what eyes, what a smile, what a voice), was (as always) baffled by Chan's acrobatics (no matter how many times he performs the same stuff), the comic relief is good (easy for kids, but not childish) and I was positively surprised with the cameos (Arnie, the Wilson Bros, Rob Schneider, Cathy Bates, Sammo Hung etc)

So I really had a great time, okay - book adaptation : 4/10; originality : 2/10 ; Entertainment : 9/10, a 7,5 on average ;-)

But then again I knew it was a jackie Chan movie beforehand-so this does give your mind time to reset itself, so when I went in I expected to see a Jackie Chan movie.

I can understand that if you think you're going to watch a good book adaptation you'll be dreadfully disappointed.

The Eye (2002)

I'v never seen an audience crawl as far as they can into the back of their chairs, wishing they were somewhere else. A friend of mine almost ended in my lap

[9 September 2003]

I won't go into the story -see all of the above. when I went to see this movie, I went because it was a hong-kong movie, I didn't read about the plot. I went blank.

This movie has a sixths sense feeling to it. But it surpasses 6th S by a mile or 2500 or so, Where the sixth sense is a good thriller (and a ood movie)the Eye is a good Horror movie.

I have never been scared while watcing a movie, well maybe when I was 6 and was watching movies like "the fog" of " an american werewolf in london" , but ever since I am a grown up have I ever been really scared-until I saw the Eye, it made me deel 6 years old again.

A friend of mine nearly jumped in my lap, at the climax of " the Others" the audience jumpt half a meter up , here every(!) climax made the audience crawl back into the backs of their seats, hoping to get as far away from the screen as possible... trying not to watch- I can't really describe it, how it felt. But I was truly and deeply scared

It's not really original (see on of the comments above about %-s of other movies) But -this movie is indeed all of the above. and all the best parts. Okay -it starts slow, but when it starts ...brace yourselves...

I was ultimately impressed. Normally my friends and I walk out, laughing, fooling around. Now we were silent -still shaken. It really took me abou 45 mins to get the movie out of my system.

My compliments to the pang brothers

Bang Rajan (2000)

impressive movie even though I can't understand a word Thai and watched it unsubtitled

[9/10 · 9 September 2003]

I lent this on VCD from a friend of mine and I was impressed. I watched a non-subtitled thai version and I don't understand a word thai.

this movie re-accounts the struggle of a small village against one of 2 burmese invasion armies and holds out for about 5 months -against all odds.

I was pleasantly surprized to find a thrilling action movie without too much sentiments, but just enough to not all hack & slash and not to much to become hollywoodish overly dramatic to the very annoying level of fase-turn-off-the-dvd-player (like Peal Harbour). The comparison with braveheart is easlily made -since this movie has one of the last mass-armies scenes that is not computer enhanced (like 10 soldiers digitally multiplied by 1000)Which is a very impressive scene

There are a few flaws. I thought the fight scenes a filmed a bit messy. It does creatw a feeling of the chaos that is melee, but unfortunately, if one can't tell one villager from another -the all look a-like, which makes the action scene little difficult to follow(compare Black Hawk Down where all were mostly caucasian and had short trimmed hair, underneath the identical helmet all wore in combination with the same desertpaterned uniforms). Concerning the main characters, this problem is solved by giving one a babyface, another a mowhawk hairsyle and british-like moustache and another a beard etc. The more you watch the the less this problem becomes The other flaw are the special effects, these are really bad. BUT I must say that didn't annoy me.

The story is easy to follow, even the flashbacks are easily spotted. The acting is good (for me I watched bodylanguage, facial expressions and intonation of voice, what else can you do when you don't understand the language) The actionscenes are very impreessive especially those with lots and lots of people fighting. The music is great as well, maybe no John Williams, but more than adequate enough to accompany any feeling a scene should return, whether it's a gentle look between 2lovers or an all out end battle

Great movie -I'm still impressed!