sir-montag Reviews

Free Fire (2016)

The worst film I've seen in my entire life

[1/10 · 22 April 2017]

I've seen some stinkers - The Room, Manos: The Hands of Fate, Ryan Reynolds's Green Lantern - and they all pale before this movie.

Rarely has such a capable, talented cast been wasted on a script this bad, with a director this bad. I'm not sure what they were paid, but I hope it was Jaws III level money, otherwise it's an utter embarrassment to otherwise good careers.

Where to begin... An arms deal gone bad. That's a fantastic opening to work from, which many other films have taken and done well with - Lord of War, etc, etc.

But this? This is just... Milquetoast pablum. People yell and shoot at each other for over an hour and nothing changes, nothing advances, no truths are uncovered. Other than the amazing potential for actors to sustain flesh wounds, and guns to have Hollywood-level magazine counts.

There is little more to this than actors yelling and shooting. I wish there was, I do. And so will you, if you have the misfortune to see this steaming pile. But it's not bad enough to be funny, or campy enough for drunken laughs with friends. It's just... Bad.

Don't see this film. Do anything else. Do your taxes. Sort your socks. Mop your floors, clean out your dryer lint trap. All of these things will provide you with more entertainment than this film could ever hope to.

Jack and Jill (I) (2011)

This is the worst film I've seen in my life

[1/10 · 5 January 2012]

I have never seen a film this bad. Manos: The Hands of Fate, The Star Wars Holiday Special, these are Oscar-nominated films by comparison. I struggle to pare down the list of adjectives for 'horrible' that I'll use here.

I'd summarize the plot, but other reviewers have covered that fairly well. Let's get on to the strangeness *behind* this surprisingly horrible film.

The interesting thing is that it's horrible by design, in the sense that it isn't bad because the people making it were inexperienced or simply among the worst in the entire film industry. Adam Sandler's production company 'Happy Madison Productions' has produced a fair number of films that have done well, if generally with questionable taste in every aspect.

The first thing you'll find puzzling when seeing this film is 'This had a budget of 80 MILLION - where did it go?'. 'Independence Day' cost 5 million less than this and you have much, much, much higher production values. The film's actual cost of production looks to have been closer to about 5 million, if that. The rest went to line the pockets of... Well, I'm sure you can make an educated guess.

The commercial product placement alone is beyond the pale - there is a full-blown TV style commercial right in the middle for a cruise line. It looks like a TV commercial, it feels like a TV commercial, then you're back to movie-land. The cruise line was so kind to shoot footage for them!

Dunkin Donuts also bears much of the shame for this entire debacle. They have a commercial at the end that is just... Well, it's so bad you have to see it. It will leave you with absolutely no respect for Al Pacino, if you had any left after making it through the majority of the film. I don't know what sort of bills he has to pay, but they must be horrific if he's accepting work like this now.

This is one of those movies that will end up in film criticism text books citing how bad things became at this point in history. If it were only so bad that it became unintentionally funny, it would deserve a spot on the wall with Mano: Hands of Fate. But it's deliberately bad, just the bare minimum to pose as a film and get money into the hands of the producer and his friends. The sad thing is, they did nothing illegal. Not even Uwe Boll financially questionable. They just figured out how to game the system, I congratulate them on that. The sales execs at Pepto-Bismol, Coke, Royal Canadian Cruise Lines, Dunkin Donuts and Sony really need to learn when to draw the line on product placement. But this is really a case where no one could say no, to the detriment of all that is good in this world.

See this movie at some point, but do not spend any money to do so. See it only to know how bad movies can be.

Green Lantern (2011)

Green Lantern: Made of Fail

[2/10 · 19 June 2011]

If someone gave you $300 million dollars and said "Make me an awesome movie about the Green Lantern", you might think to yourself 'Ah, twice as much money as Thor and X-Men: First Class had - easy as pie!'. If you're director Martin Campbell and you've impressed everyone with movies like Edge of Darkness and Casino Royale, but secretly hate super hero movies and Hollywood producers with an insane cunning, and really want to make an expensive pile of fail, you'd have made "Green Lantern".

The short review - don't waste your money on this unless you *literally* have nothing better to do than watch paint dry. If you like comic books, or even just action movies, AVOID AT ALL COSTS.

Where to begin... I heard bad things about the movie, but I thought 'How bad could it be?'.

First things first. Ryan Reynolds. Generally known for playing slightly air-headed characters with a sense of humor and formulaic Hollywood looks. Star of fifty-two mostly forgettable movies. And this is the person you cast for a tent-pole blockbuster that is about as comedic as Schindler's List? The Green Lantern's romantic interest, Blake Lively looks good, but can only do so much with the steaming pile of dialog she's been handed. Peter Sarsgaard as the mad scientist turned-host-to-evil-from-beyond-space! does quite well as a somewhat sympathetic villain. Save Sarsgaard and Mark Strong to a lesser extent, it's a text book exercise in bad casting of middle-of-the road actors.

Second, 150 million for marketing, 150 million for production, that buys some seriously impressive CGI, right? I mean, all three Lord of the Rings movies had about 15 million less for their combined budgets and look at the CGI there. From a tragic airport field at night that resembles a ray-trace from 1983 to CGI characters with entirely humanoid features (the Guardians) that aren't even *lip-synched* to a monster with a face that looks like something out of a Saturday morning children's cartoon and is roughly as terrifying, it's an amateur effort all around. Then there's the Green Lantern himself - something about the human head on the CGI body looks off for the entire film, and you sit in the theater thinking about a floating head attached to a CGI body rather than an actual character.

Third, the dialog, characters and plot belong in a straight-to-DVD release. Credited writers Greg Berlanti, Michael Green, Marc Guggenheim and Michael Goldenberg are most known for Dawson's Creek, Smallville, CSI: Miami and Bed of Roses, respectively. With an all-star team of writers like that... Oh wait. Right. Most of those are awful in terms of writing. It's almost as if someone set out to create an all-star team of the most clichéd and bland writers they could get.

Super hero movies are experiencing a golden age - for the first time, CGI has gotten to the point where comic books can make the transition to the big screen and be something to actually take seriously and not just as entertainment for children. And for the most point, in no small part due to Marvell Studio's efforts - they've done so flawlessly. With a batting average far above Hollywood as a whole, a reputation for quality in an arena that has historically commanded little respect, they've succeeded far beyond the initial hopes of fans everywhere.

DC, Marvell's traditional rival in the comic book world, on the other hand, is doing their best to sink all of that to the bottom of the Mariana trench. With such efforts as Smallville and Jonah Hex, they're doing a bang-up job at that. The notable exception being RED, while not a fantastic movie, it was decidedly entertaining. The rest of their production credits read like children's entertainment. Oh wait, it is! It all comes together like a perfect storm of fail, with DC at the helm of the SS Failboat assuring everyone that it will be a wonderful film as the viewers watch in horror as a giant wave of bad acting, horrendous plot and shambling dialog prepares to smash the entire ship to flinders. Even Ang Lee is laughing, because the title of worst big-budget comic book movie has been snatched from his grateful hands. If you don't see this film, you won't have to work to forget it. Save yourself the trouble and don't.

Priest (2011)

The Catholic Review of Priest 2011

[6/10 · 14 May 2011]

A priest throwing crosses like throwing stars into a vampire caught my attention.

Vampire meets post-apocalypse meets religious iconography meets Western. Staring Paul Bettany. I had the misfortune to see Legion and I've yet to forgive Mr. Bettany for participating in that wretched wince-fest. So given the actor and the genre, it's probably not going to be an Oscar-nominated type of film. But you know that the moment you saw the trailer.

As a Catholic (the orthodox type that grudgingly accepts Vatican II but mutters about 'the good old days' entirely tongue-in-cheek) it caught my eye. If you happen to be Catholic, every time you see a trailer for a movie where Catholicism is notably featured, you think to yourself 'Oh boy, how are they going to do a hack job that makes it out to be nothing like it actually is this time?'. Can't blame writers though, it's a religion that provides a deep, deep mine of interesting looking iconography and concepts (Apparently Catholic priests are the Ghostbusters of any movie that involves exorcism. You know who they're going to call. An old priest and a young priest.)

Interestingly enough, this film really... Doesn't involve religion. There's the iconography of Catholicism, a few words here and there, but there's really no actual religious content to the film. It's as if a tourist from another planet did a really in-depth one month tour of all things Catholic, but unable to understand the language, did the best job they could of representing it to their friends back home. The film doesn't denigrate Catholicism, it treats it more like a grab bag of 'ooo, that sounds / looks cool' material. It's a post-apocalyptic vampire western that involves characters that participate in a world where there's a State-run religion that is akin to Catholicism in a weird sort of 'parallel dimension where everyone has a goatee' type way. It's what you think you know, but not.

The movie itself is visually interesting. In many ways, it's similar to Event Horizon - another film where a concept wrapped in bad dialog with little to no sane plot caught the viewer's eye with interesting imagery.

Do you like vampires? Do you like westerns? Do you fancy a post-apocalyptic world? Does religion intrigue you, but in a 'not enough to be serious about it' way?

This is your film. It's not a bad film. It's not a great film. If you like certain things, like I do - vampires, vampire killing in a kick-ass style and a certain visual je ne sais quoi, 'world view' that's unlike anything else out there, it's worth seeing.

People you shouldn't take with you to see the film: Serious boring types that get upset if there aren't things like 'good dialog', 'character development' or 'a plot that doesn't make you put your head in your hands'. Much like Ke$ha, it's one of those catchy things you would never admit to enjoying to anyone you respected.

If you happen to be Catholic, rest assured that it's not butchering the religion and presenting some horrific view of it that alienates all who would see it. That's because it doesn't understand religion, but hey (blame the material it's based on - eastern writers tend to have a really strange view of Catholicism and Christianity in general.)

See it in 2D if possible. Like any 3D film originally shot in 2D, the 3D isn't great. Not as bad as Alice, but Avatar it ain't. While rated PG-13, taking anyone who isn't in college or older to see it isn't going to add anything to their life at this point.

And, if you, like me, enjoy it - try not to mention that in respectable company and we can just nod at each other in passing, secure in the belief that not everything enjoyable under the sun needs to be Oscar-worthy material.

Faster (2010)

Very solid revenge flick

[7/10 · 25 November 2010]

Normally when it comes to movies the Rock is in, I'm not expecting Oscar-worthy material.

The revenge flick doesn't fall into this category either, unless you count The Rules of the Game or something on that level.

This, however, is a damn fine example of the genre and one of the best I've ever seen. The look and feel of the movie is beautiful. The dialog, what little there is, has one or two misses, but the tension is solid throughout.

If you've seen the trailer, you'll know if you like this sort of film. If you do, go watch it! If you don't... Well, why are you reading this?

Billy Bob Thornton has 'skeezy' down to a T. And the Rock plays the 'man on a mission' with deft skill. The Killer, Oliver Jackson-Cohen occasionally has interesting moments, but is sadly a very wimpy example of the breed. Then again, compared to the character of the Driver, even the most stone-cold killer would find it a tough contest at best.

For those that say the Driver's revenge list is as easy as a grocery list, I'll have to admit it's more realistic for it. A man that driven and determined against a group of criminals that weren't at the top of their class to begin with - well, I know where I'd put my money.

Armored (2009)

Good movie, surprisingly tense

[7/10 · 4 December 2009]

Good, boring or bad? It's good. Worth your money? If you can spare it for a ticket, sure. Better than the trailer makes it seem? Yes, oddly.

There isn't much to the script - Guards working at armored truck company move vast amounts of cash. Guards see opportunity to retire as millionaires, one of them is too honest to go along with it all, and a well-laid plan goes to hell.

This could have been a poorly-executed Reservoir Dogs ripoff, but the skill of the cast and the director's ability to make just about anything tense pull it out of that realm and put it onto a solid footing.

Ninja Assassin (2009)

A step above what you might guess

[7/10 · 26 November 2009]

Went to see Ninja Assassin tonight, wasn't expecting a lot really, but was pleasantly surprised, great fight scenes. Gore hit the top of the gratuitous meter (Kill Bill ain't got nothing' on this movie) fairly often, but when it came to ninjas, ninjas doing what they do best, and pretty much anything ninja-related, the movie does an amazing job.

The editing, despite reports to the contrary, is just fine. The fight choreography, while not quite at ballet company standards, is certainly flashy and attention getting.

And it is nice to see a realistic depiction of what happens when you swing a razor sharp sword at someone (hint: it's not just a minor surface flesh wound). Surprisingly, ninjas are vulnerable to bullets, though most of the time 'you can't shoot what you can't see' holds all too true.

Clichés are observed, though surprisingly, handled well enough to not hit the point where it makes you roll your eyes.

If you're an action-film junkie, or a ninja fan, you'll like this film. If you're only into films that get Oscar nominations, might skip it. Otherwise, it rocks :D

Inglourious Basterds (2009)

Inglorious Letdown

[6/10 · 24 August 2009]

I'm a die-hard Tarantino fan, so I was pretty psyched going into the theater. When I left, the most feeling I could sum up about the movie was 'meh'. It's got some great bits, don't get me wrong - the acting and the dialog, at times, are just amazing. But things draaaaag out, and between trying to be funny and trying to be serious, it fails at both.

It's hard to cheer for the heroes, because their actions make them just as bad as those they torment. The film takes itself far, far too seriously, and that's really what ruins it.

I don't mind the fairy-tale style, I don't mind the hyperactive violence. The acting, dialog and cinematography are amazing. But when put together, someone forgot how to edit a film for time and pacing, and found it all so amazing they couldn't cut a second more.

It's disjointed, lengthy to the point of nausea, and amoral to the point of making the heroes no different from the villains. I wanted to like this film, but I can't. Don't bother with paying for tickets.

The Machinist (2004)

Well shot, but not that interesting

[6/10 · 6 September 2008]

Watching this film, I realized two things. One, this was well shot and written, and two... It became tedious and boring twenty minutes in.

Some had to do with the slow pacing, and the rest had to do with none of his revelations being all that interesting. If your protagonist is going crazy, it should at least be fascinating to watch for the entire movie, not just the first twenty minutes.

The whole 'Christian Bale pieces together strange clues that lead to a revelation' became far too repetitive after the first twenty minutes, leaving the rest of the film seeming like 'ah, he's found something else that correlates with some memory. How fascinating! Oh, wait, no, it's the same thing again, just with a different window dressing!'

The music was also problematic, as it hurt the film by it's incredibly lack of subtlety. "This is weird! We've got violins to tell you this! Every time it's a weird moment, we're using this same violin riff! No, really, it's iconic, not trite!"

Visually, it was very well done. I wasn't a huge fan of the look, but it was executed with such flair that was hard to dislike.

Plot-wise, it was good also, but what hurt the plot was the pacing. If you're going to be repetitive about something, it's got to be absolutely mesmerizing. This unfortunately wasn't.

Babylon A.D. (2008)

Babylon A.D. - It's An Awesome Movie, Go See It

[8/10 · 30 August 2008]

I just got back from seeing Babylon A.D. Aside from seeing the trailer, I had no idea what to expect. Obviously Vin Diesel isn't Sir Anthony Hopkins. But nor is Harrison Ford.

What I saw was an impressive sci-fi film that looked amazing. It was an excellent movie, and while at times its reach exceeded its grasp, it is no less a movie for that. It's a far, far better movie than 'Terminator 3' or 'A.I.' It's a movie you'll enjoy seeing.

Reading the IMDb comments, the only conclusion I can reach is the vast majority of the people that gave it negative reviews saw an entirely different movie. The comment about the special effects being crap really makes me wonder, as they were quite good and I work on such things on a daily basis. Have there been better? Well, yes, with movies that had ten times the budget of this one. Was this movie any worse for not having special effects better than any movie before it? Er... No. Were the special effects good enough for any normal human being? (eg, not internet people that apparently go around smoking illicit substances) Yes! They're quite nice! If special effects are all that matter to you, go see Darren Aronofsky's 'The Fountain'. I'm sure you'll like that movie more.

Simply put, it's a great movie and you'll enjoy seeing it. So what are you waiting for? Go see it already!

There Will Be Blood (2007)

Excellent movie, but not for the squeamish or easily bored

[8/10 · 10 April 2008]

So after months of failed attempts to see this movie, I finally got around to it. I'd seen No Country for Old Men and it amazed me beyond words. Hearing some of the same sort of talk about There Will Be Blood, I figured it'd be worth seeing. It's an... Interesting movie. Let's put it that way.

One sentence review: "Did you know that this was based on an Upton Sinclair novel? We'll remind you! Again! And Again! (oh, and we've got the totally kick-ass Daniel Day-Lewis in here too, by the way)"

For anyone who hasn't been forced to read an Upton Sinclair novel in high school, I'll sum up his style in short: "Did you know that there are horrible things going on in otherwise innocuous areas? How horrible you ask? Let me tell you! In graphic detail, at length! If you don't feel the urge to vomit by the first chapter, then I've failed as a writer! (oh yeah, and that phrase about 'beating a dead horse'? They were thinking of me when they coined it)"

The fact that it's based on an Upton Sinclair novel is brought up first because the entire existence of the movie is oriented around his style of writing - a graphic and brutal exploration of an area previously viewed by the common folk as fairly hum-drum. The meat packing industry is just food right? Wrong! *People* get ground up at meat packing plants and put into your food! And I'm not talking about that fictional Charlton Heston flick either!

The plot more or less goes like this: "Daniel Plainview is a complete and utter asshole and misanthrope. He's also a talented oil man. If Ayn Rand had a personal hero, he would be it. He goes to Texas.. er, California to find oil, bilk the locals, gets rich doing so, becomes the poster boy for 'creative child neglect', 'shooting your brother from another mother' and finds that once he has it all, he isn't any happier than he was before. Which was 'very much not at all'. Oh yeah, and there's crazy fundamentalists around these here parts. Did we mention that Daniel Plainview absolutely hates religion? This will be funny! Oh wait, Upton Sinclair novel, right. No, it won't be funny in the least."

If I haven't scared you away yet, it's actually a darn good movie. Not for the squeamish, the easily bored or people that think that Shakespeare is crap, to be certain, but a darn good movie all the same. A friend mentioned that it wasn't quite as good as "No Country for Old Men". That movie, at the end, was *more* than just the sum of its parts. This movie? It's somewhat less than the sum of its parts.

Still, 'not *quite* as good as the best movie in the last five years' is impressive. It's worth seeing to be sure.

Azumi (2003)

Yawn. Nothing special.

[3/10 · 9 February 2008]

I'm a fan of movies like the Seven Samurai, and others like it, but this movie... It was frankly a yawn-fest.

First off, I stopped watching this about half-way though because I got bored with it, so I'll be up front about not having seen the whole movie. The acting was sub-par, the villains and their motivations cardboard cutouts of any Asian warlord stereotype you've ever seen, the protagonists not much better.

It seemed to try to imply that the situation was *serious*, that the bad guys were *evil*, but... Between the 'pop stars somehow landed a role in an actual movie' heroes and the 'warlord #12, #15 and #1324', it just failed miserably.

In fact, literally every person on screen was a walking stereotype. It was that bad.

Unless you're someone who was a fan of the original manga, or are very easily satisfied by anyone in a movie who swings a sharp sword around, prepare to be disappointed.

Meet the Spartans (2008)

A few good moments, but mostly dreck.

[2/10 · 2 February 2008]

There are a few funny moments, but not enough to bother paying to see this film. If you didn't have to pay to see it and had access to a fast-forward button, it's fairly amusing.

Mostly it's an attempt to parody things and it's not done very well. The few laughs it does get are, well, just that. Few.

Carmen Electra needs to find a new line of work - this comes off as fairly demeaning even to her.

You sit and watch this film and wonder 'Wow, people were *paid* to make this?" I mean, there's people on Youtube with more talent, but no one's paying them. Sadly?

I Am Legend (2007)

Good, but mildly disappointing

[7/10 · 18 December 2007]

I actually went out and read the book this is based on (Richard Matheson's "I Am Legend") after seeing the trailer for this movie for the first time. It looked *that* good. The book was interesting and fairly well written, but had quite possibly one of the most depressing endings in the world.

The movie had its good points and its rough ones (CGI for characters isn't quite what it needs to be, though I'm sure it will be there in ten or fifteen years).

Will Smith does an excellent acting job, but he's not quite lost in the role, in the sense that at times, on screen, you realize you're watching Will Smith.

The director didn't quite have the chops to do this movie as well as it could have been done, I fear, as he's only got one other major film under his belt and the rest are music videos.

The film didn't really convey the horror of being the last person on earth as well as it could of. Sure, it hinted at it, but it was hardly pervading like it really should have been. The story's strongest point is it's psychological aspect and that didn't rule the day in this film. Far too many "It's A Big Budget Major Hollywood Movie!" moments kind of killed the effectiveness of that feeling. (Massive product placement at the beginning, happy deer hunting scenes, an overall light emotional tone for the first half of the movie).

All that said, it is a fairly solid movie and well worth renting, though paying to see it in theaters is a 50/50 thing.

Hitman (I) (2007)

Better than expected!

[7/10 · 22 November 2007]

Being a big fan of the Hit-man games, I was fairly worried when I heard that they were going to make a movie based on it because movies based on video games don't tend to be very good movies...

But after seeing it last night, I must say I was pleasantly surprised. It was actually quite a good movie. It may not win an Oscar or anything, but it's amazing to see Agent 47 up on the big screen. Timothy Olyphant does a surprisingly good job of portraying him too.

The love interest is a bit awkward to anyone who knows Agent 47's nearly complete lack of emotion in that department, but despite what the trailer may lead you to expect, it really doesn't go very far outside of what you've come to know in the games (and what happens when she tries to seduce him is absolutely hilarious and very much in the Agent 47 tradition).

It is indeed a violent movie, and 47 is as cold-blooded as you'd expect him to be. Seeing it tends to make me wish other movie heroes had the same level of guts, just to shoot the bad guy in the face instead of letting him live or anything silly like that. The fight scenes with the other assassins from the Agency are also very well done and quite a treat to see.

All in all, it's quite a good movie. Definitely worth paying to see in the theaters. Hopefully there'll be another one!

Six-String Samurai (1998)

Vaguely interesting premise, but ends up being a snooze-fest

[2/10 · 6 May 2007]

After watching this film I've come to the conclusion that it's one of the worst I've ever seen.

So you have a samurai with a six-stringed guitar on a quest to Lost Vegas to take the throne that the King has left behind on his deathbed. So does everyone else though - even Death himself!

Now, that paragraph is perfectly accurate. What is described sounds like a pretty cool movie. But in a concept and a setting ripe with potential for making a standout movie on a tight budget, it was failure after failure after failure. On a few occasions, it simply snatched defeat out of the jaws of victory.

So I'll list the problems in order of the severity in which they harm the film:

1. Pacing. It's God-awful. Fast when it should be slow, slow almost all the time - it just drags and drags and drags. A half-way competent editor could have been a lot of help here.

2. Acting. Budget films don't have a lot of choice when it comes to choosing a cast, but there's no point in using people that just don't care about the role and couldn't act their way out of a paper bag. Pretty much every actor throughout the entire movie seemed to be thinking

"Hmmm... Hope we can finish this up quick and get some lunch. I'm starving. The SO is in town this weekend... Wonder what we'll do?"

And pay that more attention to what they were doing on screen. I felt like I didn't want to be there and it didn't look like most of them did either.

3. Attention to detail: There were jarring parts where you'd see a 1980's Ford 150 van, in a brilliant blue (probably normal blue, but brilliant in comparison to the super-dingy tonal palette around it).

Or a modern windmill farm in a post-apocalyptic world; there were plenty of old-school electricity generating windmills from the 1930's they could base some designs on, but... No.

4. Poor editing: Non-synchronous sound? In a finished product?! This is not a hard thing to fix. It didn't seem like an 'artistic use of non-synchronous sound', to quash that idea before it can rise.

5. Narrative structure: Almost completely useless; a skimpy plot, random fight scenes, no build up, no pacing - pretty much the mayonnaise and American cheese sandwich of plots - bland and foul all at the same time, and it couldn't be filling if it tried.

In conclusion, it seems like a student film with a slightly larger budget, but on all the things that count, it just becomes a waste in the end; a waste of the viewer's time, a waste of the money used in the project; and a waste of the director's time. This might be a turd that could be polished, or totally re-shot in the future, but as it stands... It's just a dog pile.

Neverwhere (1996)

Good story, OK actors, horrible production values

[2/10 · 25 November 2006]

Neil Gaiman wrote an excellent book, Neverwhere.

Someone decided to make a TV mini-series out of it.

Unfortunately, they sucked.

The director didn't go to film school apparently. Even with the obviously very low budget, there were very, very, very basic errors that could have been easily fixed. For instance, at the end, where Richard marks out a door - the Marquis opens a door that is an entirely different shape from the one Richard marked out. Now, even though they most likely couldn't afford a special effects shot to show a dissolve from the drawing to the door opening, they could have easily made the door they built resemble the one Richard drew. Or far more easily, have had him draw a door that was the same shape as the one they built.

Really simple errors like that are rife throughout the production. The concept of 'lighting' was obviously never studied by the director - it comes off looking like a live stage play in some spots, with very, very bright spots and very, very dark spots. While that may work on a stage, it doesn't on film. Any director worth his salt would understand this. Heck, high school students in America understand this. There's no excuse for it on this level, no matter what the budget. And in other spots, it can't even be excused by the idea that perhaps the director had only done lighting for live theater before this - it's simply bad, bad, bad, bad.

The sound is incredibly hokey all throughout - it comes off as if someone scored the movie with a 1980's casio keyboard on demo mode, with very tiny electronic drums and problems that indicated time and time again, whoever did the sound had never studied sound design. Or that if they had, that they were just really, really, really bad at it. If that was true, why were they being paid to do it in the first place?

The actors are... OK. Some of them have talent, others very obviously do not. None of them do a very good job of it, though the odds are that half of it is more the fault of the director than it is their own. However, that's still half on their part that they suck at. As a previous commenter noted, they make mistakes that belong in high-school level plays. People who get paid to act shouldn't be making those sorts of mistakes.

The set design was another abortion in the making. While it's obvious they didn't have much money to work with, what they did have could have been done much better. The London Underground just looked... Bad. It's not hard to fake something that looks like a sewer city. If they had used less, they actually would have made it look better.

Good writer, good story, horrible production. If you're a big enough fan, you can sit through the thing, but... 'Sit through' is the best you'll do.

The Fountain (2006)

Has the potential to move heaven and earth, fails again and again

[4/10 · 23 November 2006]

I'm a huge Darren Aronofsky fan. Pi and Requiem for A Dream were works of art. As is this film. However, the first two had a plot that made the movie worth watching, even if they had not been works of art.

This one doesn't. It's magnificently shot, directed, acted, everything - except when it comes to the plot. It has *potential* and it has it in spades. It has no end of *potential*.

But when you get down to it, at the end of the movie, what are you left with? A beautifully shot movie, with a haunting look and sound, some feelings about some of the most weighty themes in existence and... That's it.

Just feelings. Not even fully-formed ones. The movie can't even get that far. It raises great questions, but I can raise the same ones by holding a blade of grass before my eyes and contemplating lots of fascinating philosophical ideas by very old dead people.

However, no one pays me for such things, nor would I pay Darren Aronofsky for the same. It's like someone with all the talent in the world creating a movie, but at the last second noticing that he had only written 1/3rd of the script and stretched what he had to fit what he had shot.

It might be worth watching when they release the director's cut version, where they add the plot back in.

Casino Royale (2006)

Excellent movie, serious, impressive and does't pull a punch

[10/10 · 19 November 2006]

Bond is back and there isn't a drop of cheesiness. THANK GOD! Daniel Craig is one of the best actors to ever play Bond without reservation. He looks the part, acts the part, talks the part and exudes "Bond" through every pore. No silly spy gadgets (the ones that are shown are reasonable, serious and useful things indeed), no ridiculous scenes that make you sit back and think "Yeah right, that would never happen in real life".

The Bond ladies look... Very, very good. The chemistry is excellent and Vesper is without a doubt the most kick-ass Bond woman in existence.

Long story short, it looks good and is good. The Bond franchise is back in business. Go see it!

Harsh Times (2005)

Excellent movie, far more powerful than one would guess

[10/10 · 17 November 2006]

I went to see Harsh Times knowing little about it aside from that Christian Bale was in it.

It's hard to go into detail without spoiling the plot, but it's an excellent story of two friends down on their luck, one of them an ex-soldier with some serious post-traumatic stress syndrome.

All the acting is top-notch, and knowing people very similar to the ones in the movie, I would say that it is spot-on, which is a very hard thing for any actor to nail.

A lot of the time when you watch a movie with Brad Pitt in it, you're just watching Brad Pitt be Brad Pitt. As cool as he is, this tends to spoil the movie and any suspense of disbelief.

I've seen a lot of Christian Bale movies, and even so, I forgot that it was Christian Bale throughout most of the entire movie. That is an incredibly impressive thing indeed.

The movie may not get an Oscar, but it is done superbly well, and Christian Bale is quite possibly the next Anthony Hopkins.

The Prestige (2006)

Creative, intelligent, well-written and top-notch acting

[10/10 · 29 October 2006]

The movie follows two competing magicians through their careers, as they each try to upstage the other and as their rivalry escalates. In the fighting, they both loose things dear to them, and each loss is more brutal, right to the very end.

The movie was very well written, well directed and the acting was top-notch. Christian Bale plays a magician who is extremely talented when it comes to magic, but not so much when it comes to showmanship. His rival, played by Hugh Jackman, easily surpasses him in that area and catches the eye of the crowd far better. Bale, upset at being the better magician but not seen as such grows bitter and wants what Jackman has.

At the same time, Jackman envies what he sees in Bale - his talent, and his tricks and he becomes obsessed with trying to figure them out, namely his most impressive trick, the Transported Man. Jackman comes up with his own version of it, aided with a machine built by Mr. Tesla himself (played by David Bowie of all people, and with surprising accuracy).

However, the trick isn't quite what it seems. Really, really, really not what it seems.

As a matter of fact, neither is Bale's trick what it seems. Nor is his family life.

It all builds up right to the end, with very well placed twists, and the last one the most shocking of all.

It's good. Go see it. You'll like it.

Silent Hill (2006)

Looks very cool, makes little sense (in a bad way)

[6/10 · 17 October 2006]

I play a fair amount of video games, but never played Silent Hill, so I really had no idea what to expect going into the movie.

It's creepy, it's incredibly gory and incredibly violent, and it looks very good the whole time.

After that, however, there isn't much. It is like a video game was directly adapted to the screen. In this case though, that's a bad thing. Faithful adaption of the video game it may be, but good film it's not. 90% of the time, I got the feeling that this would make a *lot* more sense had I played the game.

In many cases, things happened for no obvious reason (falling somewhere, ending up somewhere) that didn't do well for it as a film. It wasn't the good kind of 'that made no sense' but rather the bad kind - just a character falling from one situation into the next, very much akin to going through different levels in a video game.

That doesn't make a good movie though. Characters run around doing things you would do in a video game that don't come across as believable on screen - 'run around the town gathering clues' - 'solve this brain teaser' - fine for someone *playing* a *game* but for *viewing* a *movie*, it just wastes time and you're like "Ah. That's nice. Plot please?"

We don't expect Joe Dirt to be Shakespeare, so we don't hold it to those standards. Silent Hill, on the other hand, set the bar high in many ways, only to fail miserably in others. Joe Dirt can never be Shakespeare material. Silent Hill could have.

More or less, you get a very creepy and gory video game translated directly to the screen. As a video game translation, it seems to succeed extremely well. As a movie, you end up just not caring about it, and that is perhaps the worst thing that can ever be said about a movie.

Blade: Trinity (2004)

A few good moments can't save a train wreck

[4/10 · 4 October 2006]

This movie has some good moments, but they are far outnumbered by the ones that make you cringe.

Namely the incredibly painful product ipod product placement - "Oh, she likes to listen to MP3's while battling vampires!" - any sense of immersion in a film is ripped away in a giant moment of "WTF??"

Others: The "honorable warrior" dude seems like a rather nice fellow, really. They talked about 'Dracula' being in the film, but I never saw him. Sarcasm aside, for Dracula, he radiates about as much evil as a bunny rabbit. He doesn't come off as terribly bloodthirsty or vile, and truth be told, does nothing to indicate he's anything out of the ordinary aside from perhaps being stronger than your average bear, er, I mean, vampire.

The rest of the vampires are literally forgettable. They have nothing to distinguish themselves from one another and simply blur together. They don't come off as terribly evil, and when they're getting their rear ends handed to them by some generic humans, you have to try to recall what advantages vampires had in the first place. It certainly wasn't being stronger or faster than a regular human, because there was no evidence of that.

The actors are all nice enough, and it seems like they try, though they don't succeed, and most of the fault for that lies in the source material.

Very much a take it or leave it film with zero value in repeat viewing.

The Devil Wears Prada (2006)

Better than expected, beautiful cinematography, good characters

[8/10 · 5 July 2006]

I went to see "The Devil Wears Prada" on the 4th of July and found myself pleasantly surprised. It was intelligent, well written and directed and the cinematography was jaw-dropping at times, and simply beautiful from shot to shot.

The main character, Andy, actually had a personality and behaved like a real person would - a stunning development in a movie. Her actions at the end took me by surprise to say the least. As movies go, there are some very standard conventions that their plots and characters follow, and these often conflict with what 'real' people do and not in a good way. So when you find yourself rooting for a character in a movie, it really has something going for it.

I actually cared about the characters and found myself interested in what they were doing. As movies go, there is little higher praise than that.

The subject matter (fashion) may not hold everyone's interest, but if you think it might hold your own in the least, you would be well off to go see this movie.