Reviews written by registered user


13 reviews in total 
Index | Alphabetical | Chronological | Useful

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
Not Good, 5 November 2008

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

There is a spoiler insofar that I reveal the plot albeit in an extremely sarcastic manner.

In all fairness I want to say that I detest Milla Jovovich and thus I am negatively biased from the very beginning.

Here's the plot:

Milla plays a Stephen Seagal-like character with a contagious disease. When the authorities try to stem the tide of said disease she rebels and wants to go on spreading her cute infection and kills all who try to keep her and her ilk from spreading the contagion (more or less on purpose). It's like fighting the CDC when they try to stop you from spreading Ebola.

Of course it then is revealed that the powers that be don't want to stop the disease from the kindness of their hearts and so Milla must kill even more.

That's the plot.

The fights and action scenes are utterly boring and predictable because Milla's character (like virtually all Stephen Seagal characters, hence the reference above) is utterly invincible and no enemy comes even remotely close to ever standing a chance of harming her.

The main character herself is just annoying, arrogant and self-centered. There is really not a single likable character in the entire movie, much less even remotely interesting.

Special effects are plentiful yet dull and uninspired.

Acting is wooden. From Milla this is hardly a surprise since she cannot act at all but I had expected at least a symbolic efforts from the rest of the cast. Or at least the extras.


1: The plot is dumb.

2: No interesting characters. At all.

3: Acting is wooden yet hammy.

4: Special effects do nothing to contribute to this film.

I give it a 1 on the IMDb-scale because it's not worth anything better. Heck I'd rather watch Plan 9 from Outer space than this.

6 out of 10 people found the following review useful:
Good film!, 20 October 2008

I watched this movie the other day. Sound was a bit poor but otherwise the film was in good shape.

A blaxploitation-western mix? Surely this could not be good?

But to my surprise it was!

Certainly, the acting was utterly hammy but that is to be expected in both blaxploitation and in westerns so in that aspect it is in no way a bad thing.

The plot is definitely not the worst one I've come across in any genre and the character's motivations generally fit in quite nicely.

Admittedly, the Blacksmith and was a bit underdeveloped.

The actors do their jobs decently, the fight scenes are lively and the music is catch as can be.

No major complaints from me.

An excellent movie., 25 September 2008

I like this movie very much.

All the actors do a great job. Dennehy and Stallone of course are the most visible but a lot of credit to all the supporting cast as well.

Many people think of it as an action movie.

I happen to disagree.

In many ways it is a tragedy. John Rambo can't cope with civilian society and society can't cope with John Rambo. What little communication there is soon breaks down and death, fear and sadness follows.

Despite the shooty parts (or maybe because the action takes place to illustrate the helplessness of Rambo's rage and desperation as well as society's failure to care for their abandoned soldiers) I find it a though-provoking film an could perhaps even be called as a modern classic.

The movie is good.

So is the book.

They are different, of course, but still: See the film. Read the book.

I seriously doubt you will be disappointed.

Beyond Loch Ness (2008) (TV)
2 out of 5 people found the following review useful:
No masterpiece, 31 August 2008

This film is not good. I've seen worse. Fair is fair. But I certainly have seen better. The acting is quite wooden (although not utterly so) and the premises for the plot are, at best, very silly.

Nevertheless, the characters act reasonably intelligently in several scenes, which is a first for movies of this kind and there are several shots of beautiful natural scenery.

As for the special effects and the CGI... No. Bloody awful. I don't expect anything along the lines of Jurassic Park but surely they could have done just a little better?

There are some scene inconsistencies that lowers the effect too.

Still, I give it a 3 for fairly bearable characters, nice scenery and the occasional spasm of decent acting.

If you don't have to pay for it, have lots of popcorn and soda and nothing better to do, I guess it might actually be enjoyable as a pass-time.

8 out of 12 people found the following review useful:
Surprising, 11 July 2008

Much to my surprise this move wasn't a total failure. Certainly not a masterpiece but it does it's job. I think that Uwe Boll's name does more damage than the quality of the film itself. Nevertheless I actually enjoyed this film quite a lot. The plot is very simple, yes, but that alone is no reason to consider a film bad.

The actors do their job. Some with more enthusiasm than others, I grant you, but all in all the cast seems to have a good time and it shows. The sets are decent enough and the FX are certainly not abysmal.

My verdict: If you're a fan of the genre, see it. It won't be the experience of your life but it will most likely be a fun evening with popcorn and pals.

"Merlin" (1998)
0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
No masterpiece but certainly no disaster., 2 April 2008

As someone stated before med: Made for TV doesn't bode very well.

True enough, this mini-series/film does have several weak moments but also some very strong points. My main problem being the pacing being somewhat uneven and some of the characters.

I never could stand comic relief characters I'd say the actors do a job good enough even if some parts seem a bit misplaced in what, to my mind, is a rather dramatic and solemn legend.

And it was good to see Rutger Hauer again.

I'm an old guy so I tend to whine more over things I don't like than a younger viewer however. hence, if I'd seen it when I was a kid I'm sure I would have loved it despite it's flaws.

So if you have kids who are into fantasy and adventures, let them watch this. I'm sure they appreciate it more than I did.

But I don't regret watching it.

A solid 4 out of 10.

Stardust (2007)
0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Not bad. Could have been better., 18 March 2008

Let's start with stating that I am not a fan of Neil Gaiman. I haven't read the book so I cannot make comparisons between that and the film.

Now, to the film in question:

I liked it. The actors do their jobs well as should be expected. The plot is a romantic adventure and the film delivers indeed.

Special effects? No complaints at all.

Obviously there are the occasional plot holes and logical flaws, but that is to be expected since it is a tale and thus not supposed to be a documentary.

I do have some complaints though. As someone stated before: Too many man-animal transformations. It gets boring after a while.

The pacing is too fast in my opinion. Had the movie been, say, 30-45 minutes longer the overall impression would have improved and some/several of the main characters could have been properly introduced and given some much needed depth.

In summary: A likable movie. I recommend it for fans of the genre and fans of Neil Gaiman and it can be seen by kids and adults alike.

Not the greatest work ever made, but certainly not the worst either.

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
Ending ruins it. Extremely minor spoiler., 5 January 2008

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

It started out fairly OK. The acting was bearable and the plot was established. Special effects were adequate although I found the plague zombies to be somewhat poorly done in some scenes.

There were some good scenes where we see the strain of being utterly alone taking it's toll on Will Smith's character.

Then comes the end that jarringly clashes with the entire theme of the film and brings in a rather unconvincing Message of Faith and a Happy Ending that turns the entire film into sugarcoated mindless garbage...

Still, 3 out of 10 for what was good.

Because the post must contain at least 10 lines I shall now proceed to write some filler. You really don't need to read this. It is only being written to comply with format.

3 out of 5 people found the following review useful:
No. Just, No., 29 January 2007

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

No. Bad. Wrong. Worthless. Remakes are bad. Stupid remakes are worse. Conservative remakes are worst. Stupid Conservative remakes deserve annihilation.

Interesting point: Neither "side" in the movie generates sympathy.

*Sort of plot-spoiler.*

Evil, matriarchal wiccans do evil, evil stuff. Not even Christians! The horror! Give me a break. Thank goodness Cage's character didn't play some sort of Super Christian at least.

*end of spoiler-ish stuff*

Even Reverend Phelps would find this movie dumb beyond mortal comprehension.

Red Dawn (1984)
2 out of 5 people found the following review useful:
Well, now. This wasn't all bad., 12 October 2005

Actually this movie isn't all that bad. It's fun and certainly not to be taken seriously. I recall an interview with Milius where he explains that he based this movie on the games he used to play as a kid. Apparently many in USA felt a genuine fear of an invasion back then (whenever that was).

That aside, the movie is playful and the villains range from faceless soldiers to really clever counter-insurgency experts .

OK, so teenage kids are the main protagonists. Big deal. The action is neat even though the FX are slightly weak my modern standards.

And besides, who's to say that USAnians won't fight as hard as any Viet Cong or Mujahedin when their nation is invaded by a foreign power? Frankly, I think they would. Politics aside, I actually think that if this move was redone today, it would reall be way worse than the original...

See it. Don't take it too seriously. Eat popcorn. Have fun.
