Reviews

It's a fun idea, and it all begins well enough but we're soon completely trapped in every standard romcom cliché. I honestly don't understand why people go through all the time and effort and costs of making a movie when you're just going to take the predictable route so many movies have done before.

Although fairly easy to figure out the twist in the ending if you're observant enough at the beginning, and later notice what the aliens and robots actually do, it's a decent idea. It's just terribly executed. The camera compositions are often irritating, and the dark and murry color scheme used is distracting, and the editing lacks the snappiness needed in some of the thrilling sequences. Sound editing is odd as well, with weapons sometimes just making a small sound. The pacing starts out well enough, building tension, but the middle half of the film plods along slowly with obvious and predictable scenes stacked one on top of the other. I guess my favourite scene is where someone fires a gun in a car and the driver barely notices, but the rest of it was utterly forgettable.

Begins somewhat interesting with that cheesy 80s monster movie feel, but quickly descends through mediocrity to downright dull. While better than the tripe that was A New Binge on a filmmaking level, storywise I'm not so sure. And why is this rated R? It's not scary or gory, and unfortunately not funny either. Give it a pass.

Starts out fine with the first half managing to be pretty atmospheric and scary, then falls into Hong Kong-style incomprehensive events, and then pulls a neat twist to the story in the end. I rate it a 6 out of 10, which means: Don't go out of your way to watch this.

The first half of the opening episode ROCKED! It was funny, original and had all the makings of a great series. Then it became some boring serious drama, no fun, no gags. It could have been an awesome series, but instead it's now about some working class people trying to make a living. Snore.

The first half of Hero was awesome. Fantastic, great, dramatic, romantic, beautiful. I fell in love. I was amazed.

The second half just... I don't know.. died. Fell flat. Had no life. Dragged on.

By all means, do see this movie. It's a feast for your eyes and senses that you will carry home with you, despite it's very dull last half hour.

I just saw the first story of the first episode and it got me so mad I turned the crap off. It was stupid. It was idiotic. It was moronic. A DEAD person could have written a better episode. Every single one of the characters in the story acted like stupid idiots and the story was the most unlikely ever. Never mind it being the Twilight Zone, people doing moronic stuff doesn't qualify for "weird", "fantastic" or "spooky" or "thrilling" or any one of the many characteristics of a good TZ story. It had over ten million plotholes, made me angry and I want my 20 minutes back. Now.

The second Austin Powers movie made a lot more money than the first one. I don't know why, because it was like a bad rip-off of the first. This third movie has more imagination than that, it has clearly toned down all the "yeah, baby, yeah" and gone more for zany wackiness. It has more than a few bellylaughs, but also a couple of annoyingly un-funny moments, such as all the songs, the dutch accent and the appearance of Fat Bastard.

I enjoyed all the cameos, Seth Green goes nuts and Michael Caine is a lot less cringeworthy than when he plays straight drama. As with a lot of movies lately, about half and hour could have been cut from the movie, making it a nice 50-minute TV special.

Nope, this didn't cut it by a long shot. For some reason, we accept a lot of flaws in Hong Kong-movies that we otherwise wouldn't, but there's just so much in this movie that we actually laughed at it quite a few times. The story is boring, the jokes are lame and the action is sometimes clever but mostly just falls flat on illogical actions or bad props. The 5.1 surround sound was anything but surround - the only things I heard in the rear speakers were some weird sound effects (check the drumming sequence for example). So what was good? The video on the Hong Kong Legends UK DVD were fantastic, and the extras section just leave most DVDs way behind. But, deconstructing the cover slogan: "Tense" (ordinarily people shooting people can be intensive but when that's all they do, you tend to not react much after a short while) "and dynamic" (as in "all actors expand their one-dimensional characters by having their one facial expression throughout the movie") "with elements of black humour," (yes, slapstick is VERY dark) "Red Wolf is an unstoppable martial arts showcase" (except for the 80% of the movie where people talk or shoot guns) "in the best tradition of action-master, Yuen Woo-Ping." Well, I'll make sure to never watch one of his movies again.

So we checked the cover of the film. Asian crew, made in Australia, low budget action. Seemed like a nice entertaining flick, we thought about Jackie Chan's "Mr. Nice Guy" and other action movies like "Enter The Eagles". This was nothing like that. The guy who had the leading role was horribly bad and we hoped he was cast for his fighting skills or something, but that was not the case. Over a period of 85 minutes, which seemed like three hours, there was two and a half boring action sequences, and there basically was no fighting at all, just shooting. The story was mostly really dull, and I never figured out who some of the people really were. This movie was just plain bad. Avoid.

I actually didn't expect this film to very funny, as the cover mostly made it look like more of an action movie - but as it turns out it was very very funny. Great actors, great story and plot twists everywhere! It reminded a bit of "Two Days In L.A." but this one was far better. Most comedies nowadays have enough good jokes in them to last about ten minutes, but John Landis proves that movies like this still can be made.

Well, the first thing you can do wrong is to read anything about the story. What any text like that will tell you is stuff that happens halfway through the film, and that's fun isn't it? Anyway, if you disregard the fact that Christopher Lambert destroys every film he's in (there are FAN CLUBS for this guy?!?) and that the filmmaker likes to change colorschemes around and twist the picture around (to provoke nausea?) then this film is perhaps a little bit above average. Ofcourse we could pick the killer out the minute he showed up on the screen, and actionsequences are filmed real close up so you can't see what's going on at all, the story seems to be missing parts along with having several loose ends - but the special effects are way cool and David Cronenberg is in it. To sum it up: don't pay for it, wait for it to show on tv and watch it for free.

Ok.. I was planning to give this one a bad review, and when I found out that I saw the 127 minute edited version and not the hour longer original version, it just came clear to me how lucky I was. In short, if you've ever seen a thriller before then you will know all the twists and turns and it's just boring and bad. As for the "effects" when Stephen Baldwin wrestles himself... we just fell over laughing. And if you've ever read more than one Dean R. Koontz book then you probably know it involves a government experiment gone wrong. Avoid. Please.

Ok, I'm not gonna waste time repeating what's already been said here, I'll just add a few things. First of all, computer animated pink blood? We had a good laugh there - and then they did it again later on with the gun shots. Next, we have the computer generated "night" scenes. Yawn. I'm not gonna say anything about the story other than "Gee, who's the killer? Could it be the same guy that was in the first one, because we saw him survive?" and "Whatever happened inbetween the first and the second movie? Didn't Ben Willis jump out through the mirror in the end of the first one?" Keeping it short, I'd like to end by saying that I'm not waiting for "Honestly, I DO Remember What You Did Three Summers Ago" starring Ben Willis and Wilma Bendaughter as the killer and his daughter.

I remember seeing all of the Käfer-movies when I was a kid, and vaguely recall them being about a guy with his car Dodo or Dudde. This car has a computer controlling it, which means it talks, and drives a bit as it likes. I also remember I thoroughly enjoyed them, even though they were dubbed to english from german, because they were mad and had a lot of fun gags.

This movie start out great, with good suspense and cool effects and editing, but halfway through you start to lose interest. When the movie is over you can help but think about how silly the story really was and what a weird story they chose for their moral point.

However, Gregory Hines is really cool, the effects are cool (apart from this really fast glimpse of a severed head probably made by six year olds using chickenwire and rubber foam) and I said the editing is cool, the whole movie looks incredible. Quick thought: Isn't it great when older movies are restored and shown on digital-tv in widescreen and everything? If I'd rented this I bet you it would have come pan&scan with bad colors and bad detail, and me being in Sweden, it'd probably be cut too.

Apart from laughing my bollocks off at the computer software and the way nobody gets hurt even from stepping on mines, I fastforwarded my way through this movie because nothing in it was even remotely interesting, apart from the odd question marks, such as "why are there rocketlauncher armed dunebuggys in the sewers" and "how did the principal and the kids actually get away" and the ever occurring, my personal favourite, "how come the bad guys always are listening for obscure radio transmissions when they don't even need a radio to begin with". More questionmarks: Why did the sprinkler system only start in the room where they had the computers, and why did they have the valve for it in the sewers? How come there are video outlets for porno channels in the cellar of the school? (Pure video outlets, not RF outlets)