Change Your Image
JustinK-2
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
BloodRayne (2005)
Not as bad as they say ...
Whilst I'm not going to say this is the best movie I've ever seen I can also say with certainty it is far from the worst and I honestly believe it does not deserve all the 1 votes or a place in the worst 100 movies ever made! I can't disagree with criticisms that the acting was generally disappointing, especially Loken (who, overall really was quite awful), but I emphasise 'disappointing' rather than 'poor' because of two reasons. 1) the name actors may have been phoning in their performances and be poor by their own standards but for Rodriguez, Kingsly and Madsen even a phoned in performance is significantly better than many normal B-movie actors at their best and 2) given the script they had to work with no actor could have done much better! Yes, the script, the real villain of the piece ... (very bad) olde Englishe deliberately stilted phrasing and occasional modern-style one-liners are mashed together to produce some very poor dialogue, at times jarringly so, which really does not help us or the actors. I honestly think if the writing had been just a bit better the film would have benefited monumentally; much better and I think Uwe Boll might gain some converts to his cause! On to the rest of the film; the plot is not bad at all, if a little daft in places - some overlaps with the game (which I don't know) I could guess at as they were such 'gamey' concepts but at least that meant Mr Boll was trying a bit. The CGI and special effects are not ILM but are more than adequate, never really jarring and sometimes pretty good - though the (unexplained) montage at the end seem to suffer in that either they used 'longer cuts' of scenes from the film or the lack of score meant you looked more closely and were not 'caught up' because in the original sequences the make-up and prosthetics didn't look quite so obvious! The action is better than the average B-Movie with most fight scenes looking pretty good, the gore is very gory (I watched the Unrated version so don't know how much was cut for the R-Rated one), the naked women were very pretty and the ubiquitous sex scene (that admittedly seemed to appear from nowhere) was nicely done. So in conclusion, if you're looking at the cast and expecting top notch performances and associated high quality movie making, then you *will* be very disappointed. If you can get past some stilted dialogue and you're after a no-brainer B-movie with some fun, violent action and a few naked and topless women give it a try!
Extreme Honor (2001)
I'll try to sort of the Confusion ...
Not so much a review as an attempt to sort out the problems with the title. This film may be called "Last Line of Defense 2" in the UK but it was NOT made to be a sequel to "Last Line of Defense" (aka Interceptors, aka Interceptor Force), the alien fighting film, which (by unlucky coincidence) also starred Olivier Gruner...
There is another film called Interceptor Force 2 which *is* a sequel to the "Last Line of Defense" alien fighting movie which keeps Gruner as the same character and which, probably to avoid this confusion, is now available under the title "They Have Returned" in the UK (or "Alpha Force in Australia/USA)
Both the alien fighting films are directed by Phillip Roth.
AVP: Alien vs. Predator (2004)
Enjoyable romp if you let it be ...
I can't to be honest add much over what's been said already except that most of it is about right depending on your perspective ...
The characters are 2 dimensional and mostly poorly acted, there are some pretty big plot holes and there are some problems with consistency and the earlier films. On the other hand the effects are good, the plot hangs together and the action moves at a cracking pace.
You pays your money and you takes your choice - if you are happy to sit back and enjoy the ride of the big screen action I think you'll enjoy this movie. If you are looking for something with a bit of depth, character development and classy acting then maybe this one will not be top of your list.
Oh, P.S. to anyone commenting on the "How did that happen?" surprise ending ... the explanation is all but on screen, in fact so clearly it hardly even counts as a 'surprise ending' at all so I don't know how anyone could miss it! :)
Van Helsing (2004)
CGI-heavy exciting romp
There's not really much to add to the comments that have gone before as this is one film that obviously splits opinion heavily.
If you are looking for deep characterisation, subtle plotting and a seriously adult adventure you are obviously looking in the wrong place especially given its 12A rating obviously indicating that it was made for the whole family to enjoy ...
If, however you're after a cracking adventure yarn with excellent (if overused IMO) SFX/CGI, a few good twists and some great one-liners then this is a movie for you! It is a shame there wasn't a significant spark between the leads (personally I didn't think this was a requirement though really) but the expected minor roles (Igor, the Friar sidekick, the Undertaker and especially the brilliantly CGI'd Dracula's Brides) more than made up for any minor let downs by the leads.
Basically if you liked the Mummy (especially if you liked the Mummy Returns too ... ie you could ignore the rather bad CGI at the end!) then chances are very high you'll like this too.
Oh, and to the person who said nobody with an IQ above 50 could enjoy this movie, the three of us in my party all thoroughly enjoyed it and all IQs were over 125 :)
Gosford Park (2001)
A lovely, clever and subtle period piece; if you can slow down to its pace ...
A lovely film - and if you're the type of person who would never describe a film as 'lovely' this is probably the first warning that you may not like Gosford Park.
If you're wanting to see a period murder mystery a la Agatha Christie you may have to think again because though this has many of the same elements if you watch it for the mystery part you could be disappointed. It was, in my opinion a little misleadingly, advertised as such - "Tea At Four. Dinner At Eight. Murder At Midnight" but I suppose advertising it with the tagline - "Tea At Four. Dinner At Eight. Up Early for Shooting Pheasant" isn't really going to bring in the crowds ...
If the murder mystery part is not so important to you, however, and you want to see a wonderful period piece, with great actors and acting, a very subtle, dark humour full of character interaction this may be for you.
I won't really go into the murder plot - it happens so late in the film and is practically given a back seat to the fact it has inconvenienced all the rest of the guests (and staff) that it's virtually secondary to their interactions. Actually it is really only there to hang this 'study' onto and to make a specific point at the end of the film. This is a weakness for sure and I would have preferred more emphasis on this and the resulting ending but that flaw is not a fatal one when you have a cast like this for a period drama;
Maggie Smith [Room With a View, Harry Potter] - faultless as the visiting Countess
Michael Gambon [Singing Detective]- the host, Sir William, with his hands on too many people's purse strings
Kristen Scott Thomas [Four Weddings ..., English Patient] - born to play a 1930s Lady and does so here with brilliance
Charles Dance [Last Action Hero, Dark Blue World] - the English Lord Helen Mirren [Prime Suspect, Madness of King George] - the perfect housekeeper
Derek Jacobi [Cadfael, Hamlet] - leading the household servants
Alan Bates [Love in a Cold Climate, Hamlet] - a superb butler
Richard E Grant [Scarlet Pimpernel]- George the 1st footman, always off for a crafty smoke
Stephen Fry [Peter's Friends, Wilde] - the bumbling police inspector ... and many more who play their parts perfectly - the Lord who married beneath himself for money, the suspicious wife, a visiting American film producer, downstairs staff and upstairs guests having affairs both within in without of their station, the relatives requiring investments, a man with a mystery past, the military men, the men who avoided the military ... all this and Ivor Novello too. All have some secrets and almost all of them are revealed by the end of this movie.
Actually Stephen Fry as the police inspector to me was the only small let down. I think his humour, though exceptionally well done, lacked the subtlety and darkness seen throughout the rest of the picture so stood out as a bit of an incongruity ... nevertheless he got away with it and I'm sure for many his will be the funniest bits of the film!
It has been alleged that the film is very hard to hear with many (mostly seemingly US citizens) needing to use subtitles to catch all being said due to more than one person speaking at once and or speaking in a quiet voice plus being a difficult film to follow anyway. Yes, you do have to concentrate to keep up with the characters because of their large number, intricate machinations and (usually sordid and or selfish) intentions but I must say, as an Englishman I had no problem with making out the dialogue and various accents (even the many Scottish ones <g>). In fact I found the way voices were overlapped and heard in the background simply added not only to the realism but also the atmosphere ... no permanent rumble of traffic or piped music in the background just the low mumble of half-heard voices.
Atmosphere - that's really a lot of what this film is about after all. It tries, and in my opinion succeeds, in capturing the atmosphere of the 30s (it is set in 1932) - of the slower pace of life, of the distinct class attitudes from both Upstairs and Downstairs and of the interactions of people of that age. This may be why the film seems so slow to many viewers that are used to the fast pacing and deliberate plotting of a modern Hollywood movie.
In fact anyone used to the fast pacing of modern life, let alone films, *may* find it hard to slow down and appreciate the grandeur of this film and to express my thoughts below is a table of the present scoring received on the IMdB by a modern comedy (I've chosen Something About Mary as a popular comedy with the exact opposite type of humour) and Gosford Park. Obviously this is a coarse tool but it does seem to make its point...
Something About Mary: 18-29yrs: 7.4, 30-44: 7.0, 45+: 6.6, Male: 7.3, Female: 6.8
Gosford Park 18-29yrs: 7.4, 3-44: 7.8, 45+: 8.0, Male: 7.5, Female: 8.0
Quite noticeably as the audience gets older the score rises for Gosford Park and falls for Something About Mary. At my 36 years I must admit I enjoyed much more the delicate and restrained humour of the former to the in your face and (to me) often juvenile humour of Something About Mary.
To support this age bias; for the "Director's Chair" showing in my local cinema I seemed to be one of the youngest in the packed theatre ... what you read into this is up to you!
To support the male/female split "It makes a change from the usual blood and violence films you take me to" was the comment as we approached the cinema from my fiancée ... yes it was her choice, but I for one am really glad that she made that choice!
Of course all the above just shows a trend and certainly doesn't mean you'll like or dislike it just because you fall into one specific bracket or another but maybe it'll help you to decide if this is your 'kind of movie'; I hope so.
In summary the plot and ending lacked direction but this clever, subtle period piece needed neither to make it worth watching if you can keep down to the pace ...
7/10
Resident Evil (2002)
One of the best computer game to movie transfers
Let's start off with where I'm coming from on this one: I haven't played the game. I know a little about it but I'm coming at this movie from a movie viewer's perspective not a video game player's perspective.
Well it's a computer game to movie adaptation so expectations are not running high, given the travesties this usually produces. We'll just sit back and await the simple plot to be explained in the first 5 minutes, watch the CGI bad guys get cut down by the good guys and, after the fight with the big bad boss at the end, watch the heroine and hero walk off into the sunset in victory ... err, well "No" actually!
A swift overview of the film, avoiding any major spoilers, has the evil Umbrella Company developing bio weapons and the like in a huge underground facility called "The Hive". The Hive is controlled by Red Queen (a computer with hologram, personality and voice based on the designer's daughter), which has gone psycho and killed everyone. In response a company SWAT team, armed to the teeth, have been sent in via the secret 'mansion entrance' to shut it down aided by their two operatives who guarded the entrance (both of whom have lost their memories due to being stunned by a nerve gas with that side effect) and a policeman who was present at the mansion when they arrived. In they go so let the movie commence ... with us, of course, knowing that one of those bio weapons is loose so they'll be facing more than just a computer ...
Obviously I'm not going to tell you that the plot was intricate and complex, that the acting and dialogue was academy award stuff and that there was no sex and violence.
With regard to the plot? It was actually well developed throughout the film from the original premise by quite clever use of the lead characters' memories returning as time passed, adding new twists the more they remember. I was pleasantly surprised by how well this engaged me by revealing a new facet each time you thought you knew it all. The fact that some people have accused there of being too little plot while other have talked about too much plot development before the main action kicks in just goes to show they've probably got a decent balance :)
With regard to the acting? While it was pretty wooden this actually makes sense within the context of the film
people on 'SWAT teams' and people without memories are not the most likely to be emoting or bonding. As the film goes on, logically, more relationships appear in the surviving team members and the emotions start to show. Alice (Milla Jovovich - 5th Element), as the heroine was the only character who really *had* much character but, two of the SWAT team members, Rain (Michelle Rodriguez - Fast and the Furious) and Kaplan (Martin Crewes) did pretty well with their limited dialogue too. Alice's co-guardian Spencer (James Purfoy - A Knight's Tale), SWAT team leader James Shade (Colin Salmon - last 3 Bond movies) and the policeman, Matt (Eric Mabius) were the others who basically managed to hold up their part of the deal along with a few good lines by the holographic Red Queen (Michaela Dicker).
With regard to the dialogue? Yeah, OK, it was poor and quite sparse but it was good enough for a film like this
you know the sort of thing:
Surviving Team Member: "I can't believe [???]'s going to get away with it"; Red Queen computer: "I don't think so ... I've been a bad, bad girl..."
Red Queen: "The zombies can be stopped by severing of the spinal column at the base of the skull or by massive trauma to the brain"; Surviving Team Member: "You mean we shoot them in the head"
With regard to the sex and violence? It's a zombie/monster movie with Milla Jovovich as the gun-toting heroine wearing a short skirt and long leather boots (yes, she looks stunning) ... what do you think!
OK, onto a few things I did and didn't like. Some of the early action set pieces seemed very bitty' and not very co-ordinated, but this improved as the film went on and the number of protagonists dropped! While there were a good few jumpy moments Paul Anderson's directing (Mortal Kombat (!), Event Horizon) sometimes allowed the tension to drop off a little too much when it should have been sustained which is a shame. In part I think for me this was due to the zombies being all over our heroes in one scene and then, once eluded, they don't appear (or even feel like they might) until the next 'zombie set piece' and any reasons for this are often not well explained. The film managed to avoid a 'linear' feel which I thought was good for one based on a computer game and actually done better than many other 'we have to escape from the monster' films. It also didn't use much obvious CGI and that which it did use was pretty well done (except the first time we see the CGI beast for some reason). The SFX in general were pretty good and though there were lots of rumours of the gore factor being seriously cut down to keep the certificate as low as possible unless you are expecting a total gore-fest then the violence level was suitably high. The only thing they really cut down on was the level of 'pumping blood' which was actually explained by the fact that deaths were often as a result of lasers (in which case wounds were cauterised) or of zombies (where the blood had coagulated and wasn't being pumped because they were dead already). To me the worst thing about the deaths were that too often you didn't know the character well enough to care but that's a common problem in films like this and only the best in the genre overcome it totally. That copes with the image so a word on the sound. The Marilyn Manson soundtrack worked pretty well, though I don't think it's been popular with people used to the in-game music, and generally sound and were well utilised to enhance the atmosphere and should come out well on a DVD surround sound set-up.
So, the ending ... well I think it would have worked better not only as a self-contained film but also as a set-up for the inevitable sequel (slated for 2003) if it had been cut off a few minutes earlier. However it's certainly not the Hollywood happy ending I expected and I for one will be interested where it goes from here.
So to sum up. I think this is easily one of the best, if not the best, computer game to movie transfers that has taken place so far. OK not that that's saying much but if you're looking for a shoot-em-up monster movie with decent action, decent plot and sexy heroine and you're willing to suspend a bit of disbelief, this should be worth a look!
7/10
Dog Soldiers (2002)
This is what I call a werewolf movie!
A British movie that doesn't have a luvvie in sight, a horror movie without CGI or teenagers; how can it possibly succeed? Well it succeeds through having good characters, great atmosphere and real edge of the seat tension. And quite a lot of blood!
This is what I call a werewolf movie! This film doesn't hark back to the Hammer days but looks instead to more recent action horror movies for its inspiration; this film is much more Aliens than Alien. In fact the film can be likened, sometimes too closely, to Aliens with the former even paying homage to the latter with a 'counting the ammo' scene and call for "short controlled bursts" which again (of course) goes unheeded. Replace the colony complex with a claustrophobic farmhouse in Scotland (actually shot Luxembourg) and the aliens with werewolves. Add a non-Hollywood edge (you have a lot less idea of who is likely to be next), stir in couple of small twists and mix with a good amount of dark and 'military forces' type humour and you've got a fair idea of the basic outline. Oh, and talking of humour, look out for the in-joke of the piano piece that gets played - answer at the end of this review if you don't want to work it out yourself!
The characterisations are well rendered, though a little clichéd, with each of the soldiers coming across as tough, though believable, people each standing out in their own way so you actually cared about whether they lived or died. This was backed up by good acting by a cast that seemed to me to have been given very good advice on how real soldiers spoke and acted. Watch out especially for Sean Pertwee [51st State] as the experienced sergeant, Kevin McKidd [Trainspotting] as the Special Forces reject and Darren Morfitt [Grafters] as squaddie 'Spoons'. Even the weapons handling seemed to be, for once, realistic (something that I, for one, really appreciated).
Of course it wasn't perfect ... many have commented on the similarities to other films, though they often disagree on which films - Aliens, Evil Dead, Assault on Precinct 13, Southern Comfort; actually it doesn't sound like a bad set of films to be compared to does it? Being an independent they didn't have the massive budget for state-of-the-art special effects, though they did a damn good job with what they had and good direction and camerawork helped add to the threat of the creatures - no CGI here though excellent use of surround sound! No depth was gone into about the why's and how's of the werewolves and some scenes didn't seem to flow as well as they could though it this seemed to me to be where some cuts had been made for pacing and really didn't detract that much. I wonder if the DVD will reveal more ... and come out in at least 5.1 for that great sound... and retain a 15 certificate despite the realistic language and large amounts of blood!
Whether, as is often the problem with horror and thriller movies, it works as well a 2nd or 3rd time around I don't know. The tension of who'll live, who'll die and what happens next will of course diluted by prior knowledge, but I think that this film is as much up to the challenge of repeat viewing as Aliens or any of the films it's been compared to. Whatever the result it's definitely worth going to see at least once!
You really can't ask for much more from an action horror movie than this; real bite.
8/10
Answer to the in joke: it's Claude Debussy 's "Clair de Lune" (In the Moonlight).
The Scorpion King (2002)
A rollicking adventure that does exactly-what-it-says-on-the-tin
Well, after all the rumours of its potential demise, the Scorpion King finally arrives on the big screen. The big screen is where it's preferable to see it too since that's where it works best and the look of the film is what's going to make or break it given that it's not going to win any Oscars for intricate or original plotting!
But intricate plotting is not what this film is about and I suspect most people who go off to see it won't be looking for it either, so long as the movie hangs together and looks good ... and here I think it succeeds despite a few jarringly over-familiar elements:
The mercenary warrior hero (Conan et al)
The evil king using a sorcerer to take aid his armies in taking over the world (Sword and the Sorcerer et al)
The streetwise kid sidekick (Indian Jones - Temple of Doom et al)
The cowardly wisecracking sidekick (Benny from the Mummy films)
The flaky, kindly scientist forced to work for the bad guy
The amazon warriors - all good looking and able to find lip gloss
The beautiful (and she is very beautiful!) seer, forced into the service of the bad guy, who will lose her powers if she loses her virginity (Solitaire in James Bond Live and Let Die ... even down to being 'tested' after she is suspected of sleeping with the hero!)
... all these 'classic' characters (and more) are here. Though I accept that films in this genre, almost by definition, are *bound* to use elements from films that have gone before, in this case by having so many of them they're sometimes mixed a little too thin, when their roles overlap, to actually gel as well as they could.
Overall though, the action moves along at a cracking pace, the set pieces look good and are exciting (even if a couple, again, have familiar aspects... haven't we seen the escape behind the large rolling gong before once or twice - Indian Jones Temple of Doom and Jackie Chan - Armour of God for example) and the plot is enough to point the movie in the right direction without there being enough of it to pick too many holes in. Acting wise nobody really stands out but nobody is embarrassing either. The Rock actually does a better job than Arnie did in Conan and is not upstaged by any of the rest of the cast ... on the other hand that sort of lets you know the standard.
It's the type of movie it looks like on the poster; if you liked Conan and similar sword slinging fantasy flicks then you'll probably like this one. If you're after intellectual stimulus or great acting go and see something else.
6/10
Wo hu cang long (2000)
Breathtaking film which shouldn't be 'classified'
What can I say that hasn't already been said?
The scenery and settings are stunning, the action amazing and the plot interesting and heart-touching ... that's been said but it is worth repeating!
For additional comments I want to say why I say the film should not be classified; too many people have said this is not a Kung-Fu movie as they recognise it and that it cheapens the genre when real martial artists are replaced by actors, editors and computers. I say this film (and in fact any film) should be regarded on its own merits and not classed as a "Kung-Fu movie". When people say a film is a "Sci-Fi movie" what are they saying? That a film can't be set in the future and not be seen as a comedy? a thriller? and action movie? a romance? Any combination of these? This is a movie of love, battle, pride, society, ancient powers, dedication, spirituality and more; don't limit it by adding it to the list of Kung-Fu (and, yes, I like what others call "Kung-Fu movies" too!)
And to answer some other comments/questions ... (I don't think my answers to these are any more spoilers than the questions)
- Where can you see flying in Kung-Fu movies? Try "Zu Warriors" for a treetop experience.
- Jen is foolish and contemptible? Young people all over make mistakes and when you want freedom *and* to be 'good' yet freedom is offered by 'evil' whereas only study, boredom and rules are offered by 'good', then you throw in the demands of society her actions make more sense ... who of us did the right thing all the time when we were still mid-teens anyway?
- How did Jade Fox learn without being able to interpret the manual? She tells you in the film ... (it's not 'plot crucial' but if you don't want to know stop reading this paragraph now ... pause ... pause ... the manual had pictures!).
- As for there being no romantic tension between Chow Yun Fat and Michelle Yeoh? This must have been another film that was being watched - the tension and feelings were obvious to me from their first moments together; maybe the release of many much poorer/more obvious movies than this or the 'up front' nature of society today means some people can't interpret subtle body language, conversation pauses and facial expression - I hope not, that would be sad.
I'll finish where I started, reiterating what others have said before; See this movie ... if you do so without preconceptions or prejudices I think you will enjoy it, if you don't I think you may have missed a great experience.
P.S. If anyone can *privately* email me with a definitive (or at least well researched) answer to the question of exactly *why* the character did what they did at the end of the film please do ... many theories but no-one seems to know (even those who loved the movie!) and no-one here has learned a new language to read the books!