ChojinZ Reviews

Ultramarines: A Warhammer 40,000 Movie (2010)

For Hardcore Fans Only

[3/10 · 20 December 2010]

Sure I've painted a couple of miniatures and played some Dawn of War, but other than that my knowledge of the Warhammer 40k universe is pretty limited to say the least. I watched the movie in hope of maybe learning a thing or two, since it seems like an extremely rich and well crafted universe. But instead of answers, I'm left with a hundred new questions. Like why is the emperor so divine? Why would anyone build a shrine/temple on an uninhabited planet? What is Chaos and what do they want and why? Why is the hammer "sacred" or "special", and if it's so powerful why doesn't everyone wield one? What did the guy with the white armor extract from the dead bodies and why? Etc.

My guess is that humans have become some kind of religious fanatics that go around space building churches on empty rocks. And maybe those super hammers are really difficult to manufacture. Or maybe only the "worthy" may have one (this would be even more stupid). Anyway, my point is that people who know nothing or little about 40k will probably have a very hard time making sense of any of this.

The quality of the CGI is OK in some areas and abysmal in others. The armors of the marines are the highpoint of the movie. They look great. Textures, lightning and shadow effects, lots of details etc, all comes together perfectly to make them look really cool and bad ass - As long as they don't move. Animations are terrible and make these huge, intimidating war machines appear light as feathers. This breaks the magic throughout the entire movie. Head/face models are extremely poor and makes all the characters look like old, old men. The fire effect from the flamethrower is so bad it ruins every shot it's in.

None of this matters though, since this is a small budget movie made for fans and fans only. Everyone else will probably not be as forgiving and ultimately disappointed as there is neither story nor special effects to entertain.

Nokas (2010)

Extremely detailed reenactment

[10/10 · 6 December 2010]

This movie will not necessarily disappoint, but probably surprise those expecting a traditional movie with a plot and character progression etc. Nokas has none of that. Instead this is an extremely detailed reenactment of the robbery, based on witness statements, security camera footage and interviews with police officers and even some of the robbers.

The movie begins with the gang getting dressed and ready to go, and ends with them taking off with the money. Everything in between is basically the big heist scene from the movie Heat, Norwegian style, for 80 minutes.

To understand why anyone would make a movie like this, you'd probably have to be Norwegian. And what I mean by that is that Norway is a very small country where bank robberies of any kind are very uncommon. Needless to say a robbery of this magnitude resulted in an absurd media circus which literally lasted for years. All the robbers became household names and some even got their own "super villain" nicknames, such as "The Shadow" and "The Master Brain". The general fascination only grew as the leader of the gang, while hiding from the police, supposedly ordered the armed robbery of the Munch Museum in Oslo where two of the world's most famous paintings, Scream and Madonna where stolen in order to force the police to shift focus.

Anyway, the movie is great. And what makes it so is the authenticity and the fact that this is what really happened. Normally when movies are based on real events, we get the directors own interpretation of what "might" have happened, often an interpretation full of nonsense and "liberties with the truth" in order to make it work as a movie. But no, this is it. This is as close to a real robbery you'll ever get on the screen. Even small details such as certain gestures, which can be seen in the real security footage, have been carefully duplicated. This makes for an extremely tense ride which will surely keep anyone interested in heist movies on the edge of their seat all the way through.

It's also quite chocking to see exactly how the police engaged the heavily armed robbers in a fierce firefight, in the middle of a town with hundreds of civilians in the area. How they continued to provoke the robbers even after hostages was taken, and finally how it all resulted in the death of a police officer. After watching the movie it seems as an even greater miracle that no one else got killed. Hopefully the Norwegian police have learned exactly why robbers carry heavy firearms. "The Master Brain" even explains it in the beginning of the movie when he says something like: "If the police shows up, just pad your weapons and show them we're the strongest. They won't engage". Well, they did. And it didn't end well.

Diary of the Dead (2007)

Interesting script - Weak characters - Bad actors.

[4/10 · 12 April 2008]

First of all: I'm a huge fan of Romero's first three (quite disappointed with Land of the Dead) classic Dead movies, and have great respect and admiration for his work and the influence he and his movies have had on the entire horror movie genre. Along with Lucio Fulci and Dario Argento, Romero is without any doubt one of the most influential and important horror/splatter/zombie directors of all time. No question about it!

In Diary, Romero once again focuses on a few surviving people and the relationships between them, rather than the zombies and the gore. This is what has always made his movies great and powerful. In all his films, the zombies themselves work mostly as a reason to explain why a small group of very different people is suddenly forced to rely on, and help each other out, while the main focus is on the relationships between these people and the reactions and emotions that might erupt during such an extreme and interesting situation as a zombie outbreak.

While this formula is what has made his previous films interesting and entertaining, it is sadly what makes Diary of the Dead the exact opposite. And the reason for that are simply the actors. The main characters are all (except one) film school students, being just as shallow and cocky as every other cast of kids in any other "new" horror movie. The actors (all being young and unknown) seem quite inexperienced, and they all fail miserably to convince me, even for a second, that this is anything other than a bad student movie, trying desperately to be something more than it really is. And when ONE single interesting character (the mute Amish man armed with a scythe) is finally introduced, he sure doesn't stick around for very long.

A movie like this depends heavily on the actors, and when you seriously wish the entire cast would turn into zombies, just so they can shut up, the entire film, including the once great director, has failed.

The script itself, on the other hand, is actually quite good. There are some annoying things, like at the beginning when a couple of kids decides to leave school and go home and fortify themselves in a mansion, based solely on a radio broadcast, reporting about 6 cases of "strange zombie-like attacks". But over all it is an interesting script and I totally understand what Mr. Romero had in mind, and what he hoped to accomplish. Too bad the actors ruined it for him. A group of kids/students can also never be as interesting as a group of real grownups from different parts of society (as in Dawn of the Dead), and I really hope that Romero will leave the kids alone and once more focus on interesting characters, would he ever decide to do another movie (there are rumors of a Diary of the Dead part 2).

Better luck next time.

I Am Legend (2007)

Unnecessary use of CGI.

[3/10 · 4 March 2008]

I haven't read the book or seen any of the earlier movies based on it, so I didn't really know what to expect when I first sat down to watch this. The only thing I knew was what had been hinted in the trailers.

The first half of the movie is pretty good. The decaying city is beautifully visualized and it works great as kind of a supporting actor, in a movie that has very few. I'm a huge fan of post apocalyptic sci-fi stories, and because of that I do recommend anyone to watch the first half of this film solely because of the city.

The second half, on the other hand, is what makes this nothing but another ridiculous Hollywood-effect-shitfest.

As soon as the infected "monsters" show up in all their CGI glory, ALL the tension and suspense which has been greatly built up until this point, is immediately flushed down the drain.

WHY did they use CGI to create these creatures??

I can't help to imagine what this movie would have been like if they would have used real actors and makeup instead of these ridiculous computer generated humans. THAT would have been scary. The way they look now is just incredibly stupid and laughable, and it truly makes it difficult to take this film serious.

It's pretty obvious that Hollywood is under the impression that they can't sell a big movie without CGI. This is just stupid!! The way it is used to create the deserted city is exactly how it's supposed to be used. To create things/images that otherwise couldn't be created. But WHY, WHY, WHY would anyone choose to create CGI humans in a world full of actors and makeup artists!!?? Is it because it looks cooler/scarier? Well, it doesn't! It looks stupid!

As far as story goes, I would have wanted/needed at least another hour to feel even slightly satisfied. It feels as if they rushed the story and/or left things out in favor of action and effect shots.

Overall this movie had a lot of potential but sadly blew it big time.