jpaulgagen Reviews

Underworld: Evolution (2006)

Poor follow up to a cult fave

[5/10 · 2 March 2006]

I don't suppose too many people saw this without seeing the original, so there things about this movie that I liked, but the things I disliked were the really huge logic gaps between the first movie and the sequel.

I'll get to the things I liked first. Kate Beckinsale in skin tight leather *drools*. Scott Speedman's acting was a huge improvement over his performance in the first movie. The special effects were good, if a little over used. The fight choreography was good. Derek Jacobi was excellent as always.

Where the film lost me was that it was inconsistent with the logic from the first movie, for instance if Marcus was so keen on freeing his brother, why didn't he just wait for Viktor and Amelia to go into suspended animation for a 100 years and do his search then. In the first movie Selene is shown as being scared about the prospect of facing a werewolf in hand to hand combat, yet in this movie she easily despatches two werewolves in quick succession. The entire Selene being picked to become immortal because of knowledge only she had made no sense, and it violated the logic from the first movie about most mortals dying quickly when bitten by an immortal. The whole Corvinus plot was unexplained and made no sense - were his underlings mortals? what effect did his blood have? (well apart from making Selene an uber fighter)

The Boondock Saints (1999)

great script, not so great movie

[6/10 · 23 February 2006]

I can't help but think if this script was given to a director with talent it could have ended up being a great movie. There are some moments which could have been truly iconic, and the main characters are well drawn.

The casting is pretty horrible, with the exception of Willaim Defoe. Sean Patrick Flannery and Norman Reedus do acceptable jobs of the leads, but some of the other casting decisions are very suspect.

The directing style derives obviously from John Woo and Quentin Tarantino, and with some John Carpenter flourishes thrown in. Any of the three directors mentioned could have done a hugely better film.

I can't help but think that in 10 or 20 years time this movie will be remade and like Oceans 11 will be much better for being remade.

Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves (1991)

1 bonus star for Alan Rickman

[1/10 · 24 November 2005]

Avoid this and go straight to the 1938 Adventures of Robin Hood. If you can't find that go to the 1922 Robin Hood starring Douglas Fairbanks.

There is only one reason to watch this film and that is Alan Rickman as the scenery chewing Sheriff "I'll upstage everyone" of Nottingham. He is also the only reason I am not giving this film one star.

I've seen wooden dolls with a wider range of expression and more charisma than what Kevin Costner puts on display here. Adding a crusader element to Robin's story does nothing to advance the story. Morgan Freeman does a good job as the completely apocryphal Moor in England, but is only really asked to dispense sage advice and look noble. Hint to the screenwriters - Robin Hood is a classic legend, you should be picking which bits to leave out, not stuffing new things into it.

All the other actors in the film had about as much impact as blancmange.

Royal Flash (1975)

Flash Harry to the ... rescue?

[7/10 · 18 July 2005]

A lot of the humour in the Flashman novels is based on the discrepancy between how Harry Flashman appears and what he's actually thinking. As a result the filmmakers have had to make some adjustments to how Harry is played to bring our more of his innate cowardliness, lechery, thieving, and being an all round bad egg to the surface. I believe that the filmmakers have got the balance right and fully enjoyed this adaption of the Flashman papers.

The screenplay is a fairly faithful adaption of the original novel, which can be expected when the author is also wrote the screenplay. Malcolm McDowell and Oliver Reed give fine performances in the central roles, with the supporting cast ranging from excellent (Henry Cooper) to bland (Britt Ekland).

Bags of fun, but not to be taken seriously.

The Three Musketeers (1993)

Noooooo!!!!

[1/10 · 18 July 2005]

Hear that whirring sound - That's Alexander Dumas doing about 30,000 rpm.

The Three Musketeers in not a morality play, and it would take me a long time to catalog exactly how horrible this version is. Let's see what remains of the book, the title, the names of the characters, and that's about it.

Now I have no problem with Hollywood setting a morality play in Louis XIII's court, far from it. But I do object to the plundering and complete destruction of a literary classic in order to create it. They've bowdlerized Dumas. What they've done is the equivalent of turning James Bond into a teetotaler who abhors violence and respects women for their personality.

Just stick to the 1970s version starring Michael York as D'Artagnan, or if you can find it the early silent French serialization.

The Mouse That Roared (1959)

A true satire

[8/10 · 28 June 2005]

This is one of those very rare events. a movie satire that is genuinely a satire in that it takes pot shots at all sides, rather than attempting to sit on one side of the political fence and shoot down the other. The humour is, like most 50s/60s comedies fairly gentle, and lacks the madcap edge of the Marx brothers or Monty Python.

The plot basically is that the world's smallest nation declares war on the USA in order to lose, and thus reap the benefits of a Marshall plan.

Peter Sellars plays three characters, and plays 2 of his 3 characters for laughs, but for the most part plays his largest role, Tuppy, fairly straight. The supporting cast is reasonable, with Leo McKern doing an excellent turn as Benter the leader of the opposition who is just as bent as the prime minister.

The film suffers a little from the fact that the first 2 acts are very good, The decision to go to war and winning the war, but doesn't know what to do once the war is won.

Undead (2003)

Cheap horror fun

[7/10 · 16 June 2005]

Firstly in reviewing this film, just remember that it is a cheap zombie flick - there ain't no Laurence Olivier in this cast. In other words the acting's about on par with George Romero or Peter Jackson's early films, bloody horrible. But we don't watch zombie flicks for the acting.

The plot revolves around a meteorite shower that causes people to turn into brain munching (is there any other kind?) zombies. A small group of survivors attempt to battle their way to safety. This is the usual bunch of misfits, with the gun toting psycho loner and freaked out cop providing the most comedic relief.

Halfway through the film the plot starts twisting and turning and introduces a sci-fi element to explain the cause of the zombies. This is fairly complicated and you need to be watching carefully to get the most out of the twists. Watching a second time will help sort out the plot points if you missed them the first time around.

There are lots of references to previous zombie films for the aficionados of the genre. The special effects are pretty good, and better than many movies with much bigger budgets.

Its a horror movie with sci-fi overtones first and a comedy second. A good movie if you're interested in some brainless fun.