rkreitlein Reviews

Zombie Apocalypse (2011 TV Movie)

Just brutal

[3/10 · 2 March 2012]

I knew better to expect much; a Zombie movie I found on netflix that I'd never heard of. I saw that Ving Rhames was in it (I'm guessing a lot of others will fall for this hook as well) and gave it a shot. I recognized Lesley-Ann Brandt early on (how she got billed behind zero-talent Ramona, I'll never understand) and my hopes rose, but then were soon dashed. You'll quickly wonder why she and Rhames are in this movie. I hope it isn't a case of Rhames being officially over the hill as an actor (and unable to land better roles) and Brandt's career not getting off the ground. The creators of this movie need to read "Surviving the Zombie Apocalypse" and "World War Z"...Early on, they leave a perfectly good shotgun after one of the group is killed, despite the fact that they have no rifles. They burn ammunition as though it isn't an issue whatsoever for most of the film, then report towards the end that they are out. Tends to happen when you plug 5 or 6 rounds into a slow moving zombie at point blank range when one head shot would do the trick. The archery teacher clearly states "retrieve arrows if it is safe". Good policy, but one that is ignored in the VERY NEXT SCENE; the group casually walks by 3 zombies slain by arrows, even though it was a perfect change for retrieval. The special effects are about on par with the garbage you probably saw in the mid to late 1980's. The plot isn't any better. You'll get tired of the same fly-by scene of the city on fire, which is shown every few minutes. If you really really just love the post-apocalyptic zombie genre, you can probably stomach it once, but I'll wager not many people ever watch this twice.

Dreamcatcher (2003)

What "Signs" should have been

[5/10 · 23 March 2003]

I was very much surprised by how much I enjoyed this film. I wasn't real excited about seeing it, given the mixed-bag results of Stephen King movies, but this one really caught and kept my interest the entire time. I am one that had eagerly awaited, and was thoroughly disappointed with "Signs". This movie had action to go along with mystery and intrigue; The Apache attack on the downed Spacecraft was rather impressive. The only problem I had was the result of the Tom Sizemore/ Morgan Freeman relationship. I'm assuming it wasn't exactly this way in the book (which I know intend to read). I don't often hand out a rating of 8 here on IMBD, but I'd have to say that this film deserves 8/10.

Reign of Fire (2002)

Contender for worst of year

[4/10 · 12 July 2002]

Gravely disappointed in this film. I saw the previews months ago and had been looking forward to it for some time, despite the fact that it certainly isn't one of the more heralded movies of the summer. The movie is FAR TOO SHORT, and doesn't make good enough use of what time it has. The plot is too simple, and the action sequences too brief. Why not show some of planet earth's lost battle against the dragons before the survivors huddle up like rejects from Road Warrior 3? If not that, then certainly show some of the journey of Van Zant and his crew from the United States. The movie just doesn't offer enough of anything. Matthew M. looks like he's trying to become the next Vin Diesel, with his buff physique, tattoos, and shaved head. He has very few speaking roles in this film, and quite frankly I'm left wondering if his career has really sunk this low (to take a role such as this). The dragon special effects are well done, but again, there simply aren't enough of them.

Wait for video. Certainly not worth the 7.50 $ I just payed.

The Sum of All Fears (2002)

Can't believe Clancy signed off on this

[13 June 2002]

Tom Clancy had been quoted as saying how unhappy he was with past movies, stating that they weren't true to the book. Well, this one took a BIG step backward. About the only thing that is true to the book is that an Israeli bomb lost in 1973 is discovered and detonated at a football game (at least in the book they used real NFL teams, the Chargers and Vikings, and not two fakes...cheap cheap) For some reason, they decided to toss Jack Ryan back into a time capsule, and portray him as a neophyte, rather than the experienced operative that Ryan was by the time of Sum of all Fears. The casting was terrible IMO; Ben Affleck just isn't Jack Ryan. Liev Schrieber (best known for Scream) was awful as John Clark. For a guy that had been a field spook for 25 years by the time of Fears, Clark was looking pretty young and spry. I was astonished to see how badly the Naval scenes were (Clancy being a huge naval buff, of course). You just don't fly right up to an American carrier and hit it. Where were the picket ships, the AA aegis cruisers that always always screen a Carrier? There are few better defending areas on this planet than a U.S. carrier, especially in times of war. This was insulting to anyone that has enjoyed the realism of Clancy's books. I really don't see where the movies can go now. Following Sum of all Fears, Jack Ryan (now a senior operative) takes the role of Vice President of the United States, and soon after, President. Do they plan to portray Ben Affleck as president in the next few years? That just wouldn't sit too well with me, or anyone else, I'm betting

Red Planet (2000)

Really really bad...

[3/10 · 4 June 2002]

It is rare that you can take four capable, popular actors, toss them into a movie, and get such wretched results. Red Planet has been out for years, but because of bad reviews, I didn't get around to seeing it until last night. I quickly discovered how correct those bad reviews were. This movie goes absolutely NOWHERE. I won't even describe the events of the film, because there really aren't any. You can easily sum them up in a few sentences. Four capable actors (Kilmer,Sizemore,Moss,Bratt) totally wasted their time with this. In recent years, three movies have been done about the planet Mars: Mission to Mars, Ghosts of Mars, and this. I thought the former two were weak, but this one makes them look like Star Wars in comparison. As far as I know, this is the last we have seen of Val Kilmer. Is his career really THIS dead?

Rose Red (2002)

Agreed; One of King's best mini-series

[7/10 · 17 May 2002]

I vaguely remember reading about Rose Red, but only because of the death of David Dukes (an old favorite from Winds of War). Having been disappointed by some of King's mini-series/movie efforts since 1994's The Stand, I didn't catch it when it was on TV. Rented it tonight, and was pleasantly surprised. Kept me interested throughout the entire 4 + hours. Similar, but far superior to the 1999 "Hill House" movies (both of them; I get them confused) I highly recommend it to anyone that enjoys a horror film that involves more than some psycho hacking limbs off with reckless abandon.

Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones (2002)

A disappointing effort

[8/10 · 17 May 2002]

I'll start by saying that I am not one of those that was disappointed with Episode One. I didn't expect it to be as good as the classic trilogy, and was satisfied with what Lucas delivered back in '99. Yes, Jar Jar Binks was annoying, but he certainly didn't come close to ruining the film for me. That said, I expected more from Episode 2. I think many of us were expecting Episode 2 to be a big step up from one, as Lucas didn't have to introduce every character this time around. I expected more action, a more substantive story, and less sentimentality/"feel good" scenes. Lucas did deliver on the latter; this movie is certainly the "darkest" Star Wars since Empire Strikes Back. Not only is Binks' role much reduced, but equally annoying (to me) C3PO doesn't get much screen time either. The problem with Episode 2 is that the plot isn't much to right home about. In my opinion, the foundation for the establishment of the galactic empire could (and should) have been presented in a much better way than what Clones delivers. The acting simply isn't very good. Ewan McGregor has the distinct look of a #2 guy to me. He was fine as Liam Neeson's sidekick in Episode 1, but in my opinion isn't leading man material. Hayden Christenson's Anakin Skywalker is far more interesting and compelling than the child actor from Episode 1, but isn't likely to garner many acting awards for his work here either. I must admit that I was much happier with Natalie Portman this time around. Relieved of her ridiculous costumes from Episode 1, she was much improved this time. What this movie really lacked was a strong villain. There is no dashing Darth Maul around this time. The lightsaber battle between Maul and Qui-Gon/Obi Wan from episode one is easily the best combat sequence I've ever seen in a movie. It is not repeated here. The fight scenes between Jengo Fett and the jedi are good, but not nearly as memorable. Overall, I think Episode 2 will be the least successful of the Star Wars movies. It is taking harsh criticism. While this will not deter anyone that is a legitimate Star Wars fan from seeing it, I do believe that this film will suffer (when compared to the previous films) at the box office, because many fans will be unsatisfied to the point of seeing it only once, rather than returning several times. It is a good movie, but "good" just doesn't cut it when Star Wars is concerned. I believe we have a right to expect more than Episode 2 delivered.

Spy Game (2001)

Best Movie of the year

[9/10 · 4 December 2001]

Spy Game is one of those rare movies that is even better than I'd hoped for. I went in expecting a solid 7 grade movie, and walked away wondering if it just didn't justify a 9 rating. It is one of those rare movies that really never drags. Not at any point during the film did I find my mind wandering elsewhere. Immediately upon leaving the theater afterwards, I decided that this is definitely one worth seeing at the box office again. Robert Redford comes out of seclusion every couple of years to do a few movies, almost as if to remind everyone that he's still around. His recent efforts (including the Last Castle) had not (in my opinion) been anything to write home about. This one is. Brad Pitt does an excellent job as well. I hope that he will take more roles such as this in the future, and leave movies like "The Mexican" to lesser lights.

The ONLY problems I had with this movie are a pair of anachronisms that would be apparent only to a select few. Firstly, Brad Pitt wears a San Diego Padres hat during the film, in the Lebanon Segment, that was set in 1985. The Padres hat he wears is a modern one, not the one worn by the team back in '85. Clips from "Baywatch" are shown, including Baywatch icon, Pamela Anderson. This was set in 1991. Anderson wasn't on the show until 1992. These are silly, I realize (and I doubt too many other viewers of this movie would either recognize them, or care in the least) but I noticed them, and just wondered if anyone else had!

Behind Enemy Lines (2001)

Sadly, nothing you haven't seen before

[5/10 · 4 December 2001]

I must admit, I was a little leery of "Behind Enemy Lines". I've read more than a few "movie magazines" this year, and knew when and what to expect among films due out this year. I do not remember reading anything about "Behind Enemy Lines". My first exposure to it was a preview seen a few weeks ago. The PG 13 rating also scared me a bit, as most serious action movies usually depict enough material to merit the R rating. Toss in the fact that I saw the excellent "Spy Game" the day earlier, and I must admit that I really didn't go into this movie expecting a blockbuster. My intuition was correct. "Behind Enemy Lines" has the look to me of a movie that was just sort of thrown together. It isn't so much that it is uneven, poorly acted, or excessively unrealistic. It is just that its...well, nothing special. As a previous viewer stated earlier, the film is very very predictable; if ever there was a paint by numbers plot, this is it. The characters (and there are really only 3 that you know much of anything about) are pretty stereotypical, especially Gene Hackman's character. He could very easily have been played by the same Carrier Commander from "Top Gun" and you wouldn't have noticed the difference. Owen Wilson does a better job than expected here, and I have no problem with his casting in this role. The villains are standard garden variety goons. I feel that the movie would have been better if it had provided more of an insight into the sniper character, but you basically know nothing more about the character at the end of the film than you do at the beginning, other than he was interned in a prison camp somewhere at some time. The action is fairly well done, especially the F/A-18 segment.

When I think back to the films I saw for the first time in 2001, "Behind Enemy Lines" is going to fall into the "just another flick" category. I'm not sorry I saw it, nor will I make any special effort to see it again in the next year or so. It is pretty much an average movie, and one that might be more appealing to those that didn't see Bat 21 (starring Gene Hackman of all people) or Flight of the Intruder, two Vietnam Era movies from the early 1990's with similar subject matter that I consider superior to this film.

Jeepers Creepers (2001)

Much better than expected

[5/10 · 8 September 2001]

I too went to "Jeepers Creepers" expecting no better than the average (i.e. bad) horror film. It seems that several of these are released about this time every year (recently the Haunting of Hill house movies...ugh). I usually regret spending the time and money to see these films, but "Jeepers Creepers" doesn't fall into that category. Thankfully, It does not follow the same old tired plot as every other recent horror film. Rather than introducing a group of people (and making it pretty obvious who will be among the first few to get whacked), the film focuses around two main characters, and does a good job in doing so. As someone said earlier, the ending is definitely unconventional. Given the success this film has met so far, I would not be surprised to see a sequel next year.

Exit Wounds (2001)

Great comeback for Seagal

[6/10 · 19 March 2001]

It was hard to expect much of this movie, and after the "Vice President" scene, I was wondering just how it got in major theaters (Seagal has had several straight-to video movies in the last couple of years), but after the main plot of the movie started, it was surprisingly entertaining. I'm glad to see that Seagal realized (or at least his agent did) that his name is no longer sufficient to carry a movie alone. Adding DMX was really a smart move. For a rap singer, he certainly did a credible job. He looks the part as well, and I really enjoyed the fight scenes between he and Seagal. This movie is really a throw back to Seagal's earlier movies; the simple,entertaining action films without the nonsensical political undertones thrown in. Seagal's political stance, while admirable, nearly cost him his career from what I've seen. I'm really glad to see him get back to the basics that made him a star in the early 1990's. As Seagal films go, this is certainly one of the better ones, and if you like action movies, you can't go wrong by seeing it. It has some hilariously funny parts as well, something most Seagal movies have always lacked. Anthony Anderson's "TK" character is an absolute riot.

Book of Shadows: Blair Witch 2 (2000)

Really better than expected

[5/10 · 9 March 2001]

I must admit that I did not expect much at all from this film. The first Blair Witch was obviously a success, but the movie itself didn't (in my opinion) leave much room for a credible sequel. I assumed that Blair Witch 2 would basically be a rehash of the first film, involving a new set of characters tromping through the woods and basically following the same pattern as every other horror movie; dying off one by one. Fortunately, this film really doesn't follow that pattern. While not among the most terrifying movies I've ever seen (the first one does not rank among them either), it is certainly worth seeing. Don't let the bad reviews that this movie received last Halloween "scare" you off from seeing this film. It is really a worthy sequel to the original.

Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (2000)

What is all the fuss over???

[1/10 · 9 March 2001]

After reading movie reviews and listening too all the acclaim for this film, I finally went to see it with high hopes, expecting an epic. About an hour into the film, I realized that not only was this movie FAR FAR from an epic (such as a Gladiator or a Braveheart), but it wasn't even good. The action sequences made "X-men" look realistic. Indeed, they would be more at home in a Mortal Kombat movie. The fighting itself was fairly well done, but certainly nothing you haven't seen recently in any number of other films. What really puzzles me is how anyone (above the age of 10) can honestly say that this movie has much of a plot. It is transparent from the start, and is basically a rehash of any number of earlier films (including dozens of B movie martial arts flicks). I was tempted to get up from my seat and leave about half way through the movie during the "desert romance" sequence that interrupted the progression of the main plot for 20 minutes are so, while convincing me that this is quite possible the most overrated movie of all time. Are Chinese movie viewers really this unsophisticated? If you want decent action combined with a love story, rent "The Princess Bride" instead of wasting your time with this movie.

Battlefield Earth (2000)

Even worse than I imagined...

[4 February 2001]

About a year ago at this time, I first saw the previews for "Battlefield Earth" and had high hopes for it. Along with Gladiator, I expected it to be among the first "summer" movies that I intended to see. I never got around to seeing it, mainly because of the fact that it came and went through the theater in about 2 weeks. The reviews were so bad that I didn't immediately go to see it (as I had planned) but waited, hoping that someone I knew would see it first. (I even picked up the book and staggered through about 350 pages before putting it down). I finally got around to seeing it tonight, and obviously by this time, I did not expect much. In that regard, it didn't disappoint. I've never in my life seen a movie so totally bereft of a plot. I've seen deeper substance from bold, unashamed "B" movies that are designed only for late night cable. This movie just sort of blunders along with no guidance whatsoever. It seems to be somewhat based on the portion of the book that I read (which wasn't bad, just not compelling enough to finish), yet in no way did it capture my interest for even a short time. Even though I knew the plot of the movie (from the book) and was able to perhaps appreciate it slightly more than someone who had no previous knowledge, the movie just doesn't do anything right. The action scenes are unimaginative, and would feel right at home among the Sci-Fi networks' collection of failed 1970's space shows. The special effects are passable, but underwhelming, and really don't make any attempt to "show off" as did "Independence Day" In the end, I just get the sense that "Battlefield Earth" is quite simply a decent book that is entirely too long to be made into a two hour movie. It was obvious that the film's producers were desperately trying to incorporate a 1500 page book into far too short a timespan, and as a result too much plot and characterization is left behind. The most disturbing news is a rumor that John Travolta is trying to drum up support for a SEQUEL of all things. I've heard that he will partially fund the production himself, if necessary. Hopefully he'll get a grip on reality and realize that almost no one cares to see any more of this storyline...

Dungeons & Dragons (2000)

Even worse than I feared

[2/10 · 8 December 2000]

I've got to admit that I didn't expect much from this movie at all. After seeing the no-name cast and learning of the plot (a young empress...two young thieves...stereotypical evil wizard...save the kingdom...blah blah blah) I feared the worst. Today my fears were realized, as I wasted a few hours of my time watching it. Why is it (that after years of development) the makers of this film basically decided to do "Disney meets Dragons"? What in the world possessed them to make this a children's movie? Odds are that everyone that has much of an interest in Dungeons and Dragons is far too sophisticated to be even remotely entertained by this sham of a film. In the future I hope that movie makers will realize that the successful fantasy movies are mature movies, not children's movies. I hope that this movie doesn't do so bad as to totally kill the idea of basing films on Dungeons and Dragons. Perhaps next time they will base the movie on familiar characters and places. Anyone that has read R.A. Salvatore's books (NY times bestsellers several times over) knows that they are just crying to be made into movies. Whatever the case, let's hope that Solomon and crew aren't given the opportunity to continue this pathetic story line and its cast of cookie-cutter characters.

Black Circle Boys (1997)

About what you'd expect at 1:00 AM on HBO...

[2/10 · 5 June 2000]

After watching another excellent episode of the series "OZ" tonight on HBO, I decided to hang around and watch the next feature that came on, which happened to be this movie. I usually don't watch B movies with no name casts, but decided to roll the die with this one. It wasn't really BAD, but it wasn't anything that should ever achieve cult classic status. The only name in the cast I recognize is Donnie Wahlberg...geez, hope his agent can get the former New Kid on the Block some better roles in the future. I particularly didn't like the way this movie ended. I suppose we are to assume Kyle returns to his former all American status as a swimmer, but such a feat would be absolutely laughable in the real world, given the amount of drugs and smokes the kid downed in this movie. I don't imagine that you maintain too much endurance and stamina when you've spent a year sucking nicotine (and worse.

Gladiator (2000)

Best of 2000

[10/10 · 4 June 2000]

Far and away the best movie I've seen since "Saving Private Ryan" nearly two years ago. I've seen it twice at the theater, and have every intention of seeing it again before the summer ends. I'm fervently hoping that Hollywood realizes how successful "historical fiction" can be. "Braveheart" is another excellent example. Russell Crowe does an outstanding job as the stoic Roman General Maximus. The supporting cast is excellent as well. Gladiator features plenty of action, but unlike so many "swordplay" movies, the action does not seem overly unrealistic. What really seperates Gladiator from so many other similar movies is the fact that one never loses interest in the plot as the action unfolds. There are no tiresome "downtime" sequences, nor does one get a sense that the ending of the movie was rushed in any way. The movie flows from start to finish, and is a great ride for the entire 3 hours.

I'm really hoping to see Crowe cast in similar roles...the hero in a serious/realistic movie. I'll definitely take note of any movie in which he appears from now on.

Mission: Impossible II (2000)

Stick with Bond...

[5/10 · 29 May 2000]

I must admit, I wasn't too excited about seeing MI:2. When I heard that John Woo was on board for this film, I had the feeling that it would be something that I've seen elsewhere, many times before. I was exactly right. This movie reminds me of one of the weaker Bond flicks of the 1980's...cookie-cutter characters, the usual "one man against an army" action sequences, and a plot that you've figured out by the time you start wondering why you didn't just go see Gladiator again... (15 minutes, tops). Bond movies can get away with the action sequences, but you don't mind as much, since the plot is invariably better than what we get in MI:2. I think Cruise did fine as the hero, but next time, PLEASE give him some more gadgets and a better plot to work with. I wasn't a huge fan of the first movie, but I'd rate it several stars better than this effort.