Reviews

Sudden Death is not often brought up as one of Van Damme's most iconic movies but it might be my personal favorite. Yes, it might also be a little bit of a Die Hard clone - but with an interesting setting; I really like the hockey stadium as a location because it has both claustrophobic feel and space for adventuring. It's just an interesting building. And the extra heat is added when there is a bomb about to explode and the whole crowd is unknowing just watching the game. I'm not even an ice hockey fan in real life but somehow it just works in this movie. Check it out if you like classic (a bit cheesy) action movies!

This is one of those movies where the trailer has all the spectacular shots but when you see the actual film there is too much talking and meandering for an action film. For example I remember J-C doing the split, and when he's almost run over by a truck, from the tv commercial at the time when it was new. Those images make me feel hopeful that the movie might be better than I remember...but every time I watch it again it's even more boring than I remembered! I've always wanted to like this movie because I like Van Damme, and the movie title and poster are cool, but even when I saw it as a teenager and was perhaps more forgiving towards mediocre action movies I already thought it was a lukewarm movie. Only recommended for biggest Van Damme fans really.

John Wayne is so old in this movie it's difficult to believe he's supposed to be one of the top fastest drawing gunmen around. But he has his cheesy charisma, he's like a cartoon character. All he has to do is to talk with his deep voice and it's funny and cool. We also have Robert Mitchum who I think plays the best performance in the film. Also nice to see James Caan though he is more of a slightly comedic side character. Well, not that anyone else is being really serious anyway.

The plot starts interesting but somewhere in the middle I started to feel it's too long and kind of meandering. Maybe there are too many side characters and all kind of sidenote babbling that slows down the momentum. In a way it feels like Wayne was having a siesta all the time, just hanging around and lazily talking without any hurry to do anything. Maybe it's the script and the 50s-60s idea of filmmaking. The over two hours length felt unnecessary, you could trim it to a lot shorter length and the plot would still make sense.

Overall not bad but not really captivating either. Worth a watch if you like the lead actors.

When this movie came out I didn't know there exists a movie called High Noon. So Shangai Noon sounded really weird. Some time ago I watched High Noon and now finally the Shanghai version. And no, if you ask, the plot is not the same as in High Noon. There are some similar themes but there is also much more adventuring, comedy, and of course some martial arts since Jackie Chan is in the movie. Good, a remake would have been boring.

Another lead actor is Owen Wilson. He is a strange fellow. When I see his picture I think: oh no, not this guy! But when I see him acting he's usually pretty funny and better than I remembered. And he has good chemistry here with Jackie. I think the buddy thing here works better than the Rush Hour buddies Jackie and Chris Tucker.

Not among Jackie's best movies when it comes to martial arts but as a comedy it's ok. Nothing extraordinary, but it's a decent popcorn ride.

I remember seeing a tv ad for this movie as a kid but I was too young to see the movie. I've written many reviews for cases like this where the title or a poster feels nostalgic.

30 years later: The movie grabbed my attention right from the start when Kevin Costner's character is escaping from prison. Then we are introduced Clint Eastwood and Laura Birn on the cop side of things. At this point I said to myself: wow, what a cast and the plot seems interesting.

The movie works as a road movie that has some fun humor in it, but along the way more violent and sad elements also come in the mix. But the main focus us on the friendship between Costner's character and the fatherless boy, which creates the heart of the story.

I liked the first half better when it was more cat and mouse action and generally more fun. On the latter half it becomes slower and more emotional which has great acting and it works fine I guess but maybe I found it a bit too melodramatic.

Definitely not a boring movie. I didn't glance to a clock or do anything else, so you can tell Eastwood's directing works and the acting is very good all the way.

Just not a movie I' necessarily want to watch again but I recommended if you haven't seen it.

I didn't like Grease much. That in mind it was surprising the sequel was somewhat good. There are not many connections to the first film, but at least there is Didi Conn as "Frenchie", and its the same school where the events take place.

Now, the biggest issue here is the lack of a strong male lead. Instead of John Travolta we have Maxwell Caulfield. I mean, I'm not a fan of Travolta, he's a bit annoying even...but I can't deny he has certain charisma that makes him memorable. Caulfield can't match him. But wait...his character is kind of cool, he purposedly plays this nerdy ordinary guy who is a bit boring...but then he develops a secret identity as a mystery biker to impress the girl he likes. I guess that's my personal fantasy of a guy I wish to be... But the actual highlight is young Michelle Pfeiffer who is very good. She's one of my favorite actresses and it seems she was at the top of her game already in her early years. Why aren't nowadays actresses as cool?

The movie is a bit too long with the almost 2 hour clocking time being a bit too much for this kind of fluffy film. But it picked up after dragging a bit for a while. If I'm not mistaken it felt like the musical scenes were more frequent compared to the first film and also the songs were better.

If you have never heard of a movie Grease 2 (I hadn't!) give it a chance.

I remember seeing this movie when it was quite new - almost 20 years ago. I hated it, and all these years it has remained in my "worst movies ever lists". But since many years have passed and I have seen many bad movies I thought it's fair to give it another chance. Maybe it's not as bas as I remember?

I usually watch movies in one sitting, often even two movies in a row, but rarely when I'm too tired I stop the movie halfway and continue the next evening. Well, when I watching hulk again it took me... four nights just to see this one movie. I'm not even kidding. The first night I watched maybe half of it, but every next night when I tried to watch the rest I started to feel so dead sleepy I just couldn't finish. And I'm a preson with problems with falling to sleep. But this movie puts me to sleep like a drug.

To not make this review overtly long, let's try to pinpoint the issues. 1. The cgi is the worst ever. That's what I thought years ago and that's how I feel today. A very digital hulk doesn't look like he belongs to the same picture as the background. And he doesn't just smash walls which would be the thing to do, he jumps on mountain tops which looks ridiculous. Other characters are not much more interesting. Not even the woman played by Jennifer Connelly whom I adored in Dark City. And the overall visual look of the film is dull to look at, it has a weird grey tone.

The only thing I actually liked was the occasional panels of multiple images like in comic book pages. It shows they tried to do something.

But it's absolutely one of the most boring movies I've ever seen. And I've seen it twice and survived to tell about it.

I really like the first Amazing Spider Man, and I think Andrew Garfield is good as Peter Parker. This sequel is a nice addition but also a bit disappointing. It starts weird as the humor level is amped up a lot since the previous part. I guess someone said the last part was too dark, so they tried to make it more humorous this time. Eventually the story becomes a bit more serious again but I get a little bit "desperate to be funny" kind of feel from this movie. But I do like how it deepens the Peter Parker's story about how he tries to find the truth about his parents. But the action side is a bit mess. I think the digital effects are bit overused... I try not to be a "cgi always sucks" kind of guy but this movie is a good example that too much is too much, just flashy effects all the time. The villains are not very good, I don't so much care about Electro. Harry Osborn is a cool character but his part falls a bit short. The ending suggests that a third part of the trilogy might be coming but it did never happen. That's a pity actually because there was potential.

It's not too bad movie but not my favorite either.

Die Hard 1: Classic. Die Hard 2: Good sequel. Die Hard with a Vengeance: Ok, though never been my favorite. Live Free or Die Hard: total junk.

So where does this fifth installment land? Well, It's not as abysmally bad as the previous part but still not very interesting. There were a couple of good action scenes, and the movie's length is reasonable not to become a drag. But the plot or the villains are not very interesting, and what I also disliked was the shaky camerawork and weird grey/blueish tint in the picture. It just wasn't very pleasant to look at.

But I give some points for the impressive car crashing and some good shootouts.

I used to follow Marvel movies up to this film. The first two of Captain America and Thor series were underwhelming, and Guardians was the nail to the coffin that made me not see new Marvel movies in almost ten years. Now I'm trying to catch up and I have to continue from the point where I left off.

This movie makes me want to turn my head away. I don't like to watch sports because it's boring, but not even football is as boring as this. The characters are annoying, visuals are bad to look at, plot is uninteresting, and humor is not funny. I'm so glad I managed to get through the movie (for the second time). It belongs to my worst movies ever list.

This movie has been ages on my endless "to see sometime" list. I wanted to see it because it is often considered one of Jess Franco's better or most iconic films. I have seen some of his other ones before.

First of all, it's not really my favorite style film. This kind of trippy and campy 70s vibe is often annoying to me. However, there is also a dreamlike quality in the film that got me somewhat lured in. The main attraction is the jazzy music of Manfred Mann. The music is playing almost constantly throughout the movie, and that creates a feel of being trapped inside a weird endless dream. I like that. Music is very important to me in films, and it can make any movie a lot better if used wisely. Without the music I would probably say this movie was a total disaster.

The plot didn't make much sense to me. This is clearly a style over substance movie. Whether you like the particular style or not is up to you.

Not my favorite movie but I can see why it has a cult following. It is not very good but it is strange enough to be a little bit interesting.

I got this dvd for 1 euro so I decided to check it out, it is starring Van Damme after all. The movie starts interesting altough the dvd case spoils a lot what happens in the beginning. There's the drama part where Van Damme's character is happy with his family...but you might guess the idyl won't last in an action movie. Then starts the actual plot that is... well, to find the bad guy and kick his butt. What else did you expect.

What I liked about this movie is that the main character is not a typical hero. He's a former mafia guy, so when he goes to a revenge mission he's pretty bad himself too. This setting gives a lot of room to do some violent action scenes. And holy cow, there are some brutal scenes, like...one scene was like Hostel level sadism. I think it was even too much.

Despite some good action the movie ends up being a bit mediocre. I already start to forget what happened in the latter half even though I watched it only a couple of days ago. Another thing I didn't like was the early 2000s feel which means techno-ish music and somehow Fast and Furious kind of vibes. This is of course a matter of taste.

All in all, a watchable flick if you are a Van Damme fan, and especially if the early 2000s style of action movies is your favorite thing.

I remember when this movie came out but I didn't go see it because I was already tired of The Simpsons. I watched the series in the 90s a lot but at some point in the early 2000s it started to feel boring.

Now I finally watched the movie and it pretty much was in tune with my expectations. It was ok but not as funny as the early seasons of the series. Well, it was kind of funny, but in a more childish way I guess. Early Simpsons wasn't only about being funny and crazy, it also had heart. This movie was a bit empty on that department.

One thing I liked was the numerous references to other movies. Well, that's not an original idea or anything but it was something.

For diehard fans of Simpsons who still like to watch the series nowadays I guss it's a no-brainer to see this movie as well. But those who are more picky I would say it's nothing special.

I don't often watch series from start to end. It has to be somehow special that I take the effort to watch through all the seasons. Usually it starts to feel like a chore at some point.

Going through Arrow took me about four years. First three seasons I watched pretty fast. I think those were the best. Season three ended in a happy note and I was feeling a bit tired of the series already so I decided to quit for some time. Then I watched more seasons from time to time. Especially the later seasons often have episodes that start to bore me. But the thing with Arrow is that there are always those likeable characters and you start to miss them like good friends, so eventually you pop another season.

The dynamic trio is Oliver Queen, Felicity Smoak and John Diggle. These characters are the foundation that always works. But there are also many great supporting characters. If you have read any DC comics in your life you might recognize a lot of familiar characters that visit the show from time to time.

The series starts as a quite simple revenge story where our vigilante is working alone, a bit like Batman. But as the show goes on it slowly changes to a more complex character drama. That works as well because the characters are interesting. But sometimes I felt like I missed the more straightforward action episodes from the early seasons. And some of the villains especially in the later seasons have so crazy schemes that it starts to feel unbelievable even if it's not being a realistic show to start with. I think the writers should have slowed down from time to time because some individual episodes suffer from being just a build-up for some incoming mega plot.

I could talk endlessly about the characters or storylines so I guess that is a sign the series made some impression. It has its weaker moments but overall I don't regret using a lot of hours to go through it.

Most Godzilla movies that I've seen all have the same recipe: half of the time there are uninteresting human characters talking and it's boring. But when the monsters are fighting then it's really fun. The monster costumes in this movie are quite crude but I didn't mind. It's a cheesy b-movie and if the monsters look hilarious it's ok with me. I mean...the monsters were the best thing in this movie, the only good thing.

Probably not one of the best movies in the Godzilla/King Kong franchises but it's noteworthy for putting these legendary monsters in the same movie first time ever. Recommended for fans of old monster movies. Others may pass.

I was actually scared to watch this movie because I expected it would be one of those movies that is so bad it makes you want to bang your head to the wall. But it wasn't like that after all. Very silly, yes, but not boring. It was watchable, though I don't want to watch it again anytime soon (or ever?). The first half was quite good good but then came the scenes with the cgi baby and cgi dog running all around the house so fast you can't even see what's happening. That was boring, yes, because it was just a mess. Towards the end it got a bit better again.

Overall: not as bad as everyone says. Just slightly bad, but not very bad. That is my rating. Not recommended to watch...but if you feel like you want to see it, go ahead!

This version of Dracula has been cited as one of the most faithful film adaptations of the novel. That's always nice, because there are so many movies that take too many liberties from the original stories they are based on. But as a stand-alone movie I don't think this is the best Dracula movie. It lacks a charismatic Dracula actor like Bela Lugosi, Max Schreck, or Christopher Lee. Also the other actors are quite basic. They do the job but nothing spectacular. Well, it's a British tv production. Maybe some viewers like that it's more low-key and not as cheesy as some Hollywood versions. But I like my classic horror movies to be a little bit over-dramatic. This movie just tells the story but it doesn't do much else. A lot of the scenes have a little bit stage play feel. There are some outdoor scenes with graveyards, and some nice bloody scenes. But overall it doesn't go to my top Dracula films. But worth checking out.

There are no words to describe how bad this movie is. But to sum it up I can try to list some main problems: 1) It is two times two long, 2) Even if it was half shorter it would be bad, 3) Robert Pattinson is the absolute worst Batman ever and an even worse Bruce Wayne, 4) There is nothing good in this movie.

Well, the only good aspect might be that it is not a cgi fest like Marvel movies. There is potential to make a more physical street fighting Batman film.

But every character is terrible. Pattinson is the worst Batman ever. I kind of liked him in Twilight, he was okay. But he looks dumb in that new bat hood and super horrible without it - he's an EMO kid even worse than Jared Leto's Joker in Suicide Squad. BRUCE WAYNE IS NOT LIKE THAT!

Also the villains are not interesting, and the whole movie is the most boring boredomfest you can ever imagine. I have seen many movies in my life but this one surely is one of the worst.

Batman is supposed to be this cool thing but everything, just everything cool about it about it is lost here.

Images of Fantasia are familiar to me since the 80s/90s because of the Finnish weekly Donald Duck comic book/magazine which often also had articles and images of Disney movies. But I had never seen the actual film until now.

It pains me that I didn't like it very much. I was hoping it would blow me away. I'm a music fan (also classical to some extent) and I really like the concept of creating animation to match the music. But then again I'm not very big fan of Disney style animation (those silly-looking animal characters). The best parts for me were the Rite of Spring with dinosaurs and especially the closing part with the devil mountain and Ave Maria. If the whole movie was as good as that final part I could give the movie a bit higher rating.

In a way Fantasia is fantastic if you think it was made in 1940. Back then it must have been the most amazing thing you have ever seen. Looking at the screen it could as well be from the 70s or something. So you could say it was ahead of its time. But for me personally I thought it is a bit boring honestly and I'm not going to buy it for my own collection. But if there was a chance I might want to see it on the big screen.

If you look at the poster you start to expect a lot. It has Van Damme doing some cool karate pose, and then it also mentions Sho Kosugi - the star of 80s ninja movies. What could go wrong, this movie has to be awesome!

Well, in fact it was a little bit boring. First of all Van Damme does not have a lot of screentime, see, he plays the villain who is seen only occasionally. Kosugi is all right though he doesn't hold a real superstar potential.

Overall the movie is quite mediocre, not very good. But I still got some kicks out of its retro look and b-movie stylings. Definitely not a "good" movie but I still thought I want to keep the dvd on my shelf and maybe watch sometime again.

If you want a Die Hard movie you expect some action, right? Well, instead of action this movie is all about pushing the buttons of a keyboard. Not much else happens. I guess computer hacking was the early 2000s idea of a thriller. Too bad it's not interesting. Bruce Willis is all right but not even himself alone can save a movie that is an absolute boredom The villain is bland, John McClane's daughter is bland, and the hacker who looks like young Keanu Reeves is annoying and unnecessary.

Die Hard 2 is a good sequel, part 3 I didn't care so much but I guess it was at least watchable, but this one just doesn't feel like a Die Hard movie at all. I case you are curious: Buy it for 2 euro like I did, watch once, and then give it to someone and never watch again.

I watched this movie because I did'nt remember if I've seen it or not. Well, I might have to do the same thing again sometime because it was not one of the most memorable Bond movies.

First of all, there's not much action. If you want a slower drama based spy movie, then this might be your cup of tea. I thought it was a bit boring, and not enough happens in the story. I'd say it's one my least favorite Bond movies, at least from the Sean Connery era.

This movie holds some kind of reputation of being bad... I don't know if it was a flop at box office or what but I've never heard anyone praise that it's a great movie.

But there's Demi Moore and she's naked and very attractive in the poster... can't be too bad?

Well, I watched it with low expectations (from a blu-ray I bought quite cheap, not knowing if it's worth or not but I wanted to finally see the movie).

I'd say the first half was pretty good. There are spectacular striptease performances, and the story about the main character seems interesting. Then later on the story moves to other places from the strip club and it becomes a bit mediocre crime drama without that much distinct quality. I wouldn't say boring, but the two hour clocking time is a bit too much for a popcorn flick like this.

There's not as much nudity as you might expect from a film like this but Moore has enough charisma to carry the movie. I really did like her. Then there are of course some other famous actors like Burt Reynolds and Robert Patrick. Oh, and I also really liked Ving Rhames whom I didn't know before but he plays a cool bodyguard tough guy role.

Definitely not a terrible movie, just quite cheesy. I'll keep it in my collection...though, it won't be one that I'd want to watch very often again.

Last Action Hero is often said to be a watered down version of Schwarzenegger movies. Well, in a way it is, it doesn't show the violence. This is the main problem I have with this movie, it's so tame. Other than that it's a pretty exciting and creative adventure movie with a fantasy twist. Arnold is good, and I also like the kid character. Overall: it's not Arnie's best, but to be honest: it's still a movie I've watched many times and will probably continue watching in the future. That kind of re-watching quality deserves some extra points. It's a fun movie. See it with low expectations.

I just bought a Jaws blu-ray and watched it yesterday. I have first seen the movie in the late 90s when it was on tv so it has the chance of childhood nostalgia...which it has a little bit but...I don't know. This time it wasn't as good as I hoped it to be. I had this optimistic look that maybe the movie is even better than I remember but it didn't do any new tricks.

The movie starts with pretty small budget as we only see people on the beach that are occasionally attacked by the shark. This slowly builds tension but it isn't as spectacular as a film of this caliber (its fame) should be. The best part starts only later when the three main characters head to the sea to hunt down the shark. This adds more adventurous and thrilling atmosphere.

There are two moments in the film that are legendary classic to me (and probably to everybody else): the corpse in the sunken boat, and the night on the fishing boat when the captain is telling tales of his past. As a whole the movie is not bad but these are the moments that I looked forward and those were still the most effective.

Overall: Jaws is not going to my top-favorites and I think its legendary fame may be a little bit exaggerated. But it's still an interesting and exciting film, so if you haven't seen it I recommend seeing it. But don't pay too much. Try to grab some special offer.