Change Your Image
grenmonkey
Reviews
The Perfect Storm (2000)
Overly dramatic but still decent
Although being overly dramatic, The Perfect Storm (2000) is actually a decent movie. A story about a fishing boat's crew isn't the most captivating idea but the film surprisingly manages to pull through albeit the film ends up being more about the storm than the fishing crew itself.
The film is on it's best when it concentrates on the crew: lead by George Clooney, the cast on the boat does good job. The film looses it's touch when the storyline expands to cover the effects of the storm in a much broader sense and includes pointless plot lines of different sorts. These added stories all feel bland and hollow and serve no point - yes, they make the storm seem more menacing but do it very forcefully. The film would've been a lot better if it had concentrated solely on Clooney's boat and nothing else. Now it's just another traditional catastrophe movie that branches all over the place and often leaves you bored.
The film looks good and the special effects still hold their ground ten years later. The film nicely builds up the momentum as the storm closes in and the performances from the cast are solid. It's far from a masterpiece and could have used another round at the cutting floor but I did enjoy most parts of it. 3/4
Pride and Glory (2008)
A decent cop drama that lacks originality
Pride and Glory (2008) is a decent cop drama that despite having a great cast is far from a good movie. The film follows a family of cops after one specific event that starts to unfold some mysteries in the family.
I liked the visual style of the film and the way it was edited. It was gritty enough and fitted the story well: the visuals were surely the best thing the film had to offer. The script and the cast did OK job but also at the same time lacked so much. Edward Norton in the lead seemed sluggish and some of the extras/supporting actors were crazy as hell. It was Noah Emmerich who brought the points home in this one.
The biggest problem I had with the film was that I didn't really care what was happening on the screen – it was dull and boring. It was something I had already seen a dozen times before and the film brought nothing new to the table.
Pride and Glory is OK – but that really isn't enough, is it?. Why make a movie if there's no effort to try something new or re-imagine the genre that seems already to be out of juice? 2/4
The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou (2004)
A brilliant movie with it's leading star in a perfect shape
Steve Zissou (Bill Murray), the legendary oceanographer in the likeness of Jacques-Yves Cousteau, sets out for a spiritual crusade of some sort after his best friend Esteban (Seymour Cassel) is eaten by a mysterious "jaguar shark". A mixed group of individuals follow him for this sea voyage of his - including a journalist Jane (Cate Blanchett), Steve's wife Eleanor (Anjelica Huston) and a man named Ned (Owen Wilson) who thinks he just might or might not be Steve's son. Though armed with dynamite and the will to use it, Steve's chase after the shark ends up being more of a journey into understanding who he really is as a person - as a person who seems to have seen his better days.
The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou (2004) is a great film. I like everything about it - the imaginative cinematography, the retro-pop soundtrack, the diverse script and the great ensemble cast that is just perfect. I consider this to be the finest example of Wes Anderson's (the director) offbeat style of comedy and drama that blend together creating something great and unique, something to remember.
The brightest star of the film is unquestionably Bill Murray, whose performance is the heart and soul of the film. His excellent dry delivery of both comedy and drama is what defines the mood of the film and is what makes the character of Steve as interesting and captivating as he is.
The movie isn't perfect. The script could have used some rewriting as some of the dialog-heavy scenes feel a bit stretched and the film ends running a bit too long. Still, the movie is filled with brilliant scenes and such a great atmosphere through-out that the minor problems in the script are hardly a complain.
A brilliant movie with it's leading star in a perfect shape. I recommend you get past the ridiculous sounding story premise and the goofy poster and embark on the journey with Bill and the others, it'll be great. 4/4
The Beach (2000)
...is best served during the icy cold winter days...
The Beach (2000) has a bad name of some sort, not all seem to like it and many think it's a poor film based on a great novel. I disagree, I liked it. No, it's not perfect and the glorifying approach towards "backpackers" what once might've been the coolest thing ever feels cheesy and awkward a decade later, but the film still has some great things to offer.
The film manages to convey the relaxing though occasionally threatening atmosphere of the life in "paradise" quite nicely, Leonardo DiCaprio (Richard) does a good role in the lead, the film looks visually great and has some imaginative tricks in it's sleeve and the soundtrack fits the mood of the film very well.
That's the good, then the bad: the story isn't as engaging as you'd expect or hope - the story doesn't feel consistent and has some misteps along the way and doesn't seem to go anywhere in the end. The film starts out promisingly and constantly hints that something great is waiting around the corner but that never comes true; you feel mostly disappointed in the end. Not every performance from the cast convince either, especially Virginie Ledoyen (Francoise) and Guillaume Canet (Ètienne) were poor.
The Beach is best served during the icy cold winter days when the sun barely rises above the horizon - it takes your mind to somewhere warm and beautiful for a couple of hours, though it's story might not really charm you. 3/4
Waterworld (1995)
Great premise, poor story
Waterworld (1995) is a action rampage that has a lot of good things going on but still lacks so much to be a great or even a good film. Kevin Costner (Mariner) does decent job in the lead and the action is often nicely presented but what I mostly missed from the film was a good script aka. a good story.
The imaginative and interesting story premise of a post-apocalyptic world without land that Waterworld presents, offered a vast array of story lines to be told but somehow the producers and writers picked the "cheesy one" from the bunch. The sets are great and the film does look good but the lack of an imaginative story undermines everything good the film has to offer. I'd say that a more darker and grittier story would have fitted the post-apocalyptic setting better than the "adventurous" (I suppose) one presented in the film.
The film's a bit of a wasted opportunity really, could have been better. Dennis Hopper (Deacon) was great! 2/4
Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (2009)
This time the robots transform to a ball of waste.
Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (2009) is a perfect example of a movie that's sole purpose is to make mo'money for the studio (and that's exactly what the film did). The film gave the audience everything that was already seen in the first film, this time just in a much more bigger scale than before – it was like an updated version of the first Trasformers (2007) with no original ideas to add.
Where the first film was OK brainless fun, this one is not; the jokes, the action, the story – everything feels very much forced and pre-calculated, there's no surprises or any signs of imagination or real effort. I consider Michael Bay to be a decent director and great in making what he does best; cheesy Hollywood action movies (like The Rock (1996)), but Transformers 2 just feels so tedious and breathless that it was even a bit of a surprise considering who was holding the reins.
There's not much to the story: Sam Witwicky (played by Shia LeBeouf) goes off to college, comes across with some important information about the Transformers' ancient past and then get's chased by all kinds of shape shifting robots... A lot of explosions accompanied with cheesy music ensues. The rest of the cast from the first movie makes a return, though most of them having little if anything to do on the screen, Mikaela Banes (Megan Fox) being the most obvious example. The cast does a decent job but the enthusiasm found in the first film was all gone, the often ridiculous dialog possibly being one reason for that.
Transformers 2 lacks a real script and real effort which made the film unsalvageable even by the good visuals the film has to offer through-out. The explosions and the robots all look good but made hollow by the mindlessness of it all: the film's like a picture gallery or a showcase of what's possible to do in today's CGI with no meaning beyond that point. I had a horrible experience with the film. 1/4
District 9 (2009)
"We have everything but a good script. And that's A-okey."
The hype around District 9 (2009) was big a few months ago and I also in a way was taken by it: from the first released pics and teaser trailers I "already knew" that this would be a great one. I wanted it to be something original and different, maybe even a modern classic of some sort. Sadly, the finished film isn't any of those things.
The film's premise is an interesting one (minus the multiple plot-holes), presenting a very obvious reference to the apartheid and people's common intolerance towards anything "alien" (and that being real aliens in this case), but the story that follows is a downslope from a somewhat good first half of the film to an unimaginative action rampage that destroys everything the first half had managed to accomplish.
The film is presented mostly in a documentary -style but the feel of supposedly watching one is lost very early on in the film. It wasn't solely the plot-holes, the far-fetched story elements or such but the way the film was shot and edited – it's not a documentary I'm watching. Also, the beginning feels a lot like an extravagant episode of the Office (with all the goofiness and quirky characters presented) or something like that, rather than a seriously taken story of man who loses everything.
The star of the show, Wikus Van De Merwe (played by Sharlto Copley) feels more like an unused "white collar office worker" -caricature from some sketch -show, than a successful government agent leading the relations between the human race and the extra-terrestial refugees. Sharlto does decent job with the character even though the character's arc from a quirky pencil pusher to Rambo 2010 is everything but believable – or interesting.
The film looks good; the CGI is decent, the hand-held camera style fits the events and the South African slum setting is well put together (though in parts unbelievably racist: the way the Nigerians are presented in the film is a very odd and miscalculated step in my opinion). Technically the film is OK but the story and the script possess all the elements that keep District 9 from rising above the sea of mediocriticy; heavy thematical underlining, lousy story elements, poor character development, unimaginative dialog and so forth. The premise offered an endless array of great stories to tell, it's kind of sad that the most boring, the most easiest and the most obvious one was selected. 3/4
Cobra (1986)
the 80's back!
I had some expectations for Cobra (1986) because the poster of Sylvester Stallone as Lieutenant Marion "Cobra" Cobretti is some sort of an icon in popular culture: I thought I'd be seeing a great 80's action rampage, with loads of bad one-liners, a cheesy sex scene with the "hero and the woman in trouble", stereotypical bad guys and so forth. Indeed I got most of those but there wasn't anything so great about it.
The film's about Cobra (Stallone), who tries to track down a serial killer called "Night Slasher" while trying to protect a witness (Brigitte Nielsen) that could help him solve the case; Cobra's answer for both of those problems is shooting everything in sight, throwing a bad one-liner in after and pausing for a moment to let the audience laugh for the line in peace. But usually there's nothing to be laughed about other than the movie itself.
The plot is thin and there's very little if any character development in it, but I don't think anyone even expects a decent script or versatile characters from an 80's action thriller starring Sylvester Stallone. Sly does OK job with the character of his and he does look cool with his tight jeans, long coats and aviator sunglasses, not forgetting the matches he constantly chews... but I wouldn't be praising him for his performance. Rest of the cast is also OK, though some of them dangerously balance on the (broad) line between serious and laughable – the often ridiculous dialog does not help the case.
The action is also OK but I expected there to be more of it. The action that is just about to get interesting is often interrupted with more mellow or thrilling scenes in which the film doesn't shine at all – the pacing is off.
Cobra is a decent film that still rides on with it's cool 80' feel. The film experience for me was more about the curious examples of what was considered cool in the decade that I was born, not so much about the action or story themselves. 2/4
Planet Terror (2007)
Brilliant
Planet Terror (2007) is a brilliant film; it shamelessly takes all the things we love from cheesy 80's action, zombie and horror films and crushes it all to one solid package that is both funny and thrilling. Bad "one-liners", lots of shooting, gore related jokes, cheesy "ominous soundtrack" and all the other bits and pieces that make you smile are there to be found in this film. This is Robert Rodriguez at his best.
A bio-weapon gets released and turns people into zombies – a mixed bunch of small town survivors have to make their way to more safer grounds. Among the survivors are Wray (Freddy Rodríguez), go-go dancer Cherry (Rose McGowan) and Sheriff Hague (Michael Biehn) who all fit perfectly into the bizarre setting as the stereotypes they are, the casting throughoutly is just right.
The film looks good and is fun to watch; the deliberate improper cuts, sound distortions and visual filters all add up to the unorthodox movie experience. The jokes are plentiful, the action is well shot, the story takes some unexpected turns and the ensemble cast is good – the film's really entertaining. It's not perfect though: the pacing is off at times and Robert has taken the "easy way" a bit too often with the script (there was room for more subtle jokes among the more obvious ones) but still the film's fun to sit through. The Machete -trailer that starts the presentation is the icing on the cake. 3/4
Street Fighter: The Legend of Chun-Li (2009)
.....
How can a movie that runs for a hour and a half feel so long? Street Fighter: The Legend of Chun-Li (2009) is a horrible, unimaginative, cheesy and just plain stupid movie. The dialog made me laugh at the movie, not with the movie – the actors didn't pull through with the cheesy material. The acting is agonizing along with the script that makes very little sense if any, even the action is dull.
The whole movie is just one big pile of rotten cheesy clichés sewn together without any idea of what is being made. The first Street Fighter movie (1994) at least made me smile once here and there with it's "camp" -attitude, Legend of Chun-Li tries too hard to be a seriously taken "growing-up" drama that the fail is twice as bad that it could've been. I felt ashamed even just watching the movie, must've been tough to be actually a part of it. Well, at least they all got paid.
I really don't have anything positive to say about the film. 1/4
Terminator Salvation (2009)
Terminated...
Fot the fourth installment of the Terminator franchise, McG took the director's reins and steered the series towards something new. Terminator Salvation (2009) brings the story into the future war between the machines and the remaining human ”resistance” (or terrorists...) - an event which the previous films have all flirted with but something we haven't yet fully seen on screen. It could've been great: a post-apocalyptic world, people trying to survive in any means they can, machines hunting them day and night without a break, intense atmosphere etc...
But sadly it isn't great, it isn't even good or passable but very poor. There's plenty of action in the film; big explosions, big machines, big everything... but that's all there really is. The film, without a stop, jumps from another scene packed with action to another – and that would be just fine (like in the previous Terminator films) if the scenes or the action were imaginative and interesting or that there was an intriguing storyline being told in the process but Terminator 4 hasn't got any of those aspects in it.
The lack of a real or interesting story is what brings the film down. I could take the poor action and even the lousy performances from the cast if the story was right but now everything just has gone south. And it's a bit odd because I thought the principle idea of the story was great and something not seen in the Terminator -universe before but from the very first minutes of the film you'll find out that something has gone terribly wrong in the writing process (or with the executives..?) and the story filmed here is lousy, full of plot holes and shallow characters, cheesy dialog and so forth.
The cast (as I hinted above) isn't doing the best they can either; especially Christian Bale (John Connor) was a disappointment, Sam Worthington (Marcus Wright) not being that much better – and they're the two leading stars you could expect a good performance, no matter what the script was like.
Terminator Salvation is (sadly) a generic action rampage without any thought. The great post-apocalyptic setting is waisted alongside with the legacy of the three (or two...) previous films (a great source material by the way, though used ridiculously poorly) so badly that it's criminal. I know they're making a fifth one but I've lost interest. 1/4
Blade (1998)
Cheesy fun
Blade (1998) is an entertaining action film that looks and sounds good - or should I say ”cool” because that surely has been the aim with all the sunglasses, swords, camera-run gimmicks and whatnots. Wesley Snipes plays (and growls his way through) the lead – a vampire hunter called Blade – and does it rather well. A lot of action set to the heavily tecno/hiphop -based soundtrack is what the film is all about, with some humour and drama thrown in time to time. Kris Kristofferson (Whistler), N'Bushe Wright (Karen) and Stephen Dorff (Deacon Frost) support in the cast. The film's opening scene is a great one and it's rather sad that the rest of the movie doesn't quite manage to stay on the same level – we've seen the best the film has to offer after the first ten minutes or so.
Blade is kinda cheesy fun, a guilty pleasure of some sort. It's over the top in in a lot of ways (starting from Wesley's growling, continuing with the often ridiculous use of music and ending with the endless sunglass-related jokes) and does it shamelessly too. You might not love the movie or anything but somehow you take a seat on the sofa every time the film's on TV. 3/4
Not Another Teen Movie (2001)
Fun if you like the teen movie genre
Not Another Teen Movie (2001) is a decent parody of the "teen movie" -genre that actually manages to throw some great punches here and there. The humor is based on sex, relationships, puberty, bodily liquids and such – anything and everything associated to the teen movies in general. There's a couple of films on which Natm's plot is based on and more jokes relate to those movies.
The cast is OK, Chyler Leigh and Chris Evans leading the bunch, all deliver their lines nicely and are great as the stereotypes that they are supposed to be.
There isn't much to say about the film. It does a lot better job than most of the parody films of the decade but still it drags far behind the "great" ones, like Hot Shots (1991) or Top Secret (1984). But then again, Natm makes comedy out of whole different kind of films and themes than e.g. the two mentioned above... 2/4
Lethal Weapon 3 (1992)
Feels like coming home
(I watched the director's cut)
Martin Riggs (Mel Gibson) and Roger Murtaugh (Danny Glover) are back in action, already for the third time. The dynamic cop-duo tries to tackle into the business of an arms dealer while dealing with some personal issues they face along the way. A lot of familiar faces and a couple of new ones – it feels like coming home.
Nothing's really changed from the two previous films: the great chemistry is still going strong between Mel and Danny and both of them are as top of their game as they were with Lethal Weapon one and two (1987,1989). The mood is a bit lighter than before but the jokes are basically still the same. There's nothing really wrong with that; I could watch the clever and funny exchange of spiteful remarks of the two for hours and hours – but the film in story-wise gets a bit too repetitive and ultimately brings very little new to the table. I really liked the first 15 minutes or so of the film but after that the aforementioned story related problems started to show their ugly faces (the unnecessary inclusion of Joe Pesci's character (Leo Getz) being one) and in parts I lost interest in the film.
Lethal Weapons have never been any master works of great action and the third one is no exception. The car chases and shoot-outs look good and there's some nice "roughness" in them but the fast and dull editing wrecks the scenes a lot. So in the end the film is mainly about the characters, the humorous dialog and the grooving soundtrack. Nevertheless, it's fun to sit through even if the action doesn't pump up the adrenaline. 3/4
The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002)
Epic proportions
(I watched the extended cut) The middle part of the Lord of the Rings -trilogy, The Two Towers (2002) managed to balance nicely between the intimate character driven moments of the first film and the massive (and long) battle sequences and "epic" atmosphere of the third film. The film also added a well crafted CGI-character to that mix, along with a wonderfully bleak story and a great soundtrack. The result was that Two Towers is somewhat the highlight of the trilogy; not bouncing so much around from scene to scene as the first or the third film and rid of the boring story moments of the The Return of the King (2003).
The fellowship has broken and the film follows the three somewhat separate story lines of the remaining characters of the Fellowship of the Ring (2001), while adding new ones from left and right. Elijah Wood (Frodo) and Viggo Mortensen (Aragorn) are again the strong points of the cast, Bernard Hill (Theoden) also a positive surprise. Andy Serkis does great work along with the effects team at bringing "real" life and emotion to the CGI -character of Gollum.
The action scenes are fun to sit through, the drama keeps you interested and the definite battle scene is well build-up from the first words of warning to the last swings of swords and whatnots – the film's good fantasy entertainment. Like the other films of the trilogy, it lacks the deeper and more"humane" approach of the books the films are based on, concentrating more on the "heavy on drama and action" -scenes but I understand the thought process behind that decision. I'm not so much of a fan of the books, myself so that's not a "big question" for me.
Peter Jackson (the director) managed to keep the multiple and branching story lines well in place, the film also looks great and contains a great otherworldly atmosphere throughout. It has some issues (I didn't find all the story lines interesting enough, the CGI in places is pretty awful in comparison to the best the film can offer, runs for a tad too long) but is a great movie experience to sit through. 3/4
Defiance (2008)
Could have been a lot better
Defiance (2008) tells the story of the Bielski brothers who constructed a community of their own in the Belarussian forests during the Second World War and fought against Nazi Germans in the process. The film is based on a true story which I'm not very familiar with but I'm sure the Hollywood studios have had their hand in the mix because the finished story here has a very overly "heroic" theme in it and the story feels very one-sided and "simplified for the masses". There's multiple scenes which try to show different sides to the story and the events at hand and try to throw some shades of gray into the otherwise black and white way of seeing the world but all those scenes suffer from a heavy underlining and they only scratch the surface of the issues that should have been explored more deeply - like the tension between the campers, the nature of the Nazi soldiers, the nature of the Jews etc. This all ends up to the fact that the story told here is a very shallow one and feels through-out very "Hollywood-ish".
It's no surprise that the story feels so shallow: Edward Zwick's (director, co-writer) isn't the most gifted man working in Hollywood. He seems to do the same movie over and over again; The Last Samurai (2003), Blood Diamond (2006) and Defiance feel very much the same when it comes down to the theme and nature of the stories and the films. The films even have the same gritty look that admittedly works.
The cinematography, editing and the visual look (with sets, wardrobe etc.) are the film's strongest sides. Everything looks appropriate and the editing grabs you along for the ride. Edward knows how to make interesting looking Hollywood films, I just wish he would give as much attention to the story and the dialog as he gives to the visuals.
Because the dialog and acting (along with the story) were the things I had the most issues with. The dialog is horrible: why, oh why did they decide to make the characters speak bad English with a heavy "East European" -accent? Why not make them speak English right or make the whole film with the other languages and put some subtitles on it? I mean, they speak horrible and barely understandable English to each other – does the accent bring some value to the film? Does it make the film feel more original or what's the point? Or were they just hiding their lacking writing skills by producing simple and horrible sounding dialog? At least it's a nice way to get a way with it...
Daniel Craig and Liev Schreiber as the Bielski bros. make the best they can with the bad dialog written for them and they manage to do a decent job with it, the rest of the cast doesn't really deserve any praise.
Defiance is a very mediocre and uninspiring film that lacks any real thought or emotion. It looks good but it doesn't have anything to say or comment on anything – it just "is". The short action scenes aren't very interesting and the CGI used in them won't be bringing any awards home. The film relies heavily on drama and the interaction between the characters which all is ruined by the garbage they call dialog. Could have been a way better film. 2/4
X-Men Origins: Wolverine (2009)
stealing people's money since 2009
X-Men Origins: Wolverine (2009) is exactly what the title of the movie says: an origin tale for the character of Wolverine (Hugh Jackman). It's a shame the film's so blatant, uninspiring and generic as it is because there surely were enough ingredients to make the story and the visual aspect of it in a much more compelling and intriguing way. I'm not a fan of the superhero genre or the Marvel comics and don't know much about the character of Wolverine but still there had to be more potential to the character than presented here if the character's supposedly such a pop cultural icon. The finished film is just an rush through the many meaningless and dull action scenes, throwing in ”familiar faces and characters” from the previous films like there were no tomorrow and keeping up with the tradition of poor dialog in the X-Men -movies.
Hugh Jackman is a decent actor but he doesn't have much to do in the film other than constantly keeping a menacing or troubled expression on his face and showing off his trained upper body. Liev Schreiber supports as much as a guy running on four legs with extremely long and powerful fingernails can – so not that much. Rest of the cast slumbers their way through the flick, or at least the two or three minutes they each get ”on screen time”.
The action is as mentioned above very uninspiring and something seen so many many times before: a lot of CGI and slow motion, not much imagination or creative effort. And when there isn't much in the film besides the action, you ponder what's really left; lousy dialog, dull camera-work and set design, poor acting and ridiculous story progression...
Come on movie people, put some real effort the next time you try to steal the people's money. 1/4
Aliens (1986)
a great film.
James Cameron had some big shoes to fill back in the mid 80's; Ridley Scott's Alien (1979) had been a huge commercial and critical success and James' job was to create a sequel to this film that was almost an instant classic in the industry. How to beat the first film and live up to the expectations set up so high by the first film and it's growing fan base? James' answer was to take the film into a completely new direction. The sci-fi horror was replaced with action (and even bits of humor), though still maintaining the scares and the suspenseful atmosphere of the first film. The combination of these elements turned out to be very much a working one and Aliens (1986) in my books is the definite "Alien -experience" of the franchise. The film took the original idea and developed it into something even more interesting and thrilling. The film can be held responsible of creating a set of pop-cultural benchmarks that still stand sturdy and defining the way action and sci-fi was represented on the film screen for decades to come.
Ellen Ripley (Sigourney Weaver) has to face the alien race again when the connection to an outer space colonial settlement gets cut off. She unwillingly takes part in a rescue mission with a team of space Marines – scares, gunfire, screeches and some bits of laughter ensue.
The movie's a brilliant packet: the visual style, the story, the dialog, the special effects, the sound and music – every aspect of it is able to stands on it's own (in a sense) but combined it sums up to something very cool to look at and listen to. The film has aged gracefully and still looks great though some of the effects look a bit too obvious and "old" in todays standards but it's nothing that could hurt the over-all experience.
The cast is great and it (along with the visual style and design) is what makes the movie stand out. Sigourney is brilliant in the leading role and she and the alien creatures are together what the whole franchise is all about – in Aliens the character is on her best, both on paper and in Sigouneys performance. Michael Biehn (Hicks), Bill Paxton (Hudson), Janette Goldstein (Vasguez) and Al Matthews (Apone) are all great in their roles as are the one's not mentioned here except Carrie Henn (Newt) who fails to live up to the role that probably was too demanding for the very young actress. She doesn't destroy the movie in any means but in some of the scenes her performance breaks the "movie magic" and makes you very much aware that you're watching a kid playing a kid, not a kid being the character.
Aliens is one of the most iconic movies in the history of the industry and it still lives on strongly. It's thrilling and entertaining and I've been rambling about for way too long. A Great film. 4/4
Crank: High Voltage (2009)
Great!
Crank: High Voltage (2009), the sequel to Crank (2006) picks up right after the events of the first film; Chev Chelios (Jason Statham) yet again has a new reason to beat, maim and kill people – the film's a non- stop action ride and Jason is great in the leading role.
The film's violent, constantly on the move and packs a lot of physical and verbal humor that actually is funny. I love to see the "gangsta" - culture getting ridiculed for a change. Jason, as said above, is great in the leading role and he really get's to shows his comedy chops in the film. The supporting cast is also great, especially have to mention Efren Ramirez's who's brilliant.
The plot is what it is but the solid action, the fitting acting, the visual style (over the top and straight in your face) and the at times even clever and surprising humor are the things the film's really about.
The film's a step up from the first film: it's more funnier and more outrageous. It's not so much about the action this time around; it's more about the humor.
Crank: High Voltage may be obnoxious, violent, over the top and ridiculous but it's a great way to spend an entertaining hour and a half. 3/4
Taken (2008)
Neeson's show
A former spy Bryan Mills (Liam Neeson) travels to Paris where her daughter Kim (Maggie Grace) has been kidnapped and forced into the slave trade. Using his set of spy skills he tears down the city to find her before it's too late.
Taken (2008) is written by Luc Besson and Robert Mark Kamen and directed by the formers protégé Pierre Morel. The film has the same kind of "Besson" -vibe in it that there is also in the other projects he's been involved with and the film in that sense feels very homey and safe to sit through; the theme and plot of the movie on the other hand are far from homey or safe. The plot though is very thin and clichéd (especially in the beginning) and the characters are very narrow and one sided but the film's not really about neither one of those aspects: it's all about the thrilling atmosphere and Liam Neeson kicking some serious butt.
Liam Neeson is great in the leading role and he's the best the film has to offer; if it had been some one else than him in the role I probably wouldn't have been interested about the film. He's convincing as an aged former spy, beyond his best years but still more than capable in killing and torturing people. He's not a good guy, just a troubled father who goes as far as it's required to find what he's looking for. The supporting cast does a decent job but the film lives with Neeson's performance.
Pierre Morel does OK job directing the flick; along with Neeson's great performance, the film has a nice, fast pacing and the action is well filmed and brutal enough to fit the bleak situation the characters have to face.
This is Liam Neeson's show whether you like it or not, there's no question about that so it helps if you like the guy. It may be tough if you don't because the films assets are very much limited and Liam being the biggest one in that bunch. 3/4
Coraline (2009)
Great story, amazing visuals
Coraline Jones (Dakota Fanning) feels that she isn't living the happy family life she should be with her parents (Teri Hatcher & John Hodgman). The family has just moved to a new area against Coralines wishes, the parents are all caught up in their work and there's not much to do for Coraline in the new, alien and secluded surroundings she's put in. She feels unappreciated by her parents – and she's more than delighted when she finds a secret door inside the house which leads to a different kind of reality where all her wishes seem to come true... Then the buttons come into the picture and everything goes haywire - you'll understand when you watch the film.
Coraline's (2009) a stop-motion animation (with some CGI-thrown into the mix) and it looks amazing. The characters and the sets are well designed and brought to life with a great attention to detail. The characters are well animated and the voice work for each and every one of them is just right. Especially Dakota Fanning as the titular Coraline deserves extra praise – if she hadn't done a great job the whole film would have fallen flat along with her performance. Luckily for the film she's great in the role. What I also really liked about the characters was that even though how bizarre or "over the top" they were, or regardless how few minutes of screen time for some of them was given – they all seemed to have something more than just the first and the most obvious "layer" in them, something going on "behind the scenes". It brought that much more life into them and into the story itself.
The film's look is very much alike with the one of The Nightmare Before Christmas (1993) – and it's no wonder, the films share the same director: Henry Selick. The design is very Gothic- and dream-like and looks spooky and amazing at the same time. Along with some creepy design, the story isn't all kid-friendly either. There's nothing scary in it but in some of the scenes the tension does build up a bit.
The storytelling get's into motion a bit too slowly and it get's overwhelmed at first by the amazing visual look. But still, Coraline (2009) has a great story to tell and the whole film is a fine example of a "family movie" anyone can enjoy. 3/4
Paul Blart: Mall Cop (2009)
already outdated
Segways, Segways, Segways... I thought that Segways had been an old joke for years now but Paul Blart: Mall Cop (2009) seems to disagree with me. The films mainly about an awkwardly behaving mall security guy who rolls down the aisles of a mall with his beloved Segway. Some robbers take control of the mall one night and guess who's coming in for the rescue... and no, it's not laughs and smiles, in case you were wondering.
The film's very bad in general, mainly because it isn't funny though as a comedy it probably should or was meant to be. Kevin James as the titular character doesn't deliver the goods, neither does anyone in the cast nor crew. The dialog is lousy, the story elements are something seen and heard a thousand times before and the constant flirtation with anything pop in the teen culture is annoying; it fixes itself too much to a certain time and the times change fast and the film feels already outdated with many of it's skits a half a year or so after it's release. 1/4
Transporter 3 (2008)
waste of time
Transporter 3 (2008) in short is an action flick with some nicely choreographed fighting scenes ruined with very fast editing and too many "image-mixes" thrown in; the film also features an OK performance from Jason Statham (Frank Martin) and Robert Knepper (Johnsson) and a horrible one from Natalya Rudakova (Valentina); the films "completed" with a lousy script and poor dialog. So, not a real jackpot as many may agree.
In this third installment of the franchise Frank has to unwillingly complete a "transport" and he's teamed up for the job with an Ukrainian girl Valentina, also an unwilling participant in the grand scheme to extort an Ukrainian minister in environmental issues. Fistfights, car chases and unnecessary upper body nudity from Jason Statham is what we get from the laughable story premise described above, along with a bad performance from Natalya which really brings the overall feel of the movie down.
The director didn't do much good either – I felt the constant fast cuts and camera runs were annoying and destroyed the visual style of the movie though it otherwise looked very decent. The story and the dialog though is what kills the movie – yeah, I know it's very much an action movie but the previous two movies in the franchise were much better when it came down to the story and dialog. The idea of exploding bracelets is unimaginative and quite boring and the "character building moments" between Jason and Natalya are horrendous and awkward to watch through.
Transporter 3 is to me the low point of the series with very little to be happy or excited about. There's still room for number four but it needs to be more in the style of the first or even the second one, not the waste of everybody's time we have right here. 2/4
Soldier (1998)
Not a fan...
Kurt Russell is Todd, a war veteran taught to kill and obey from the time he was born. He's not allowed to show emotions, think for himself or even talk when not spoken to – the perfect killing machine for the army. The bad thing is that he's getting old and a new breed of genetically enhanced young super soldiers are brought in to replace him and his kind, Todd is obsolete. Replaced and left to die, it's time for Todd to learn a new kind of way of living outside the army he has served for his whole life...
Soldier (1998) is very much a straight narrowed action flick: there's the set-up action scene, the more quiet middle section with few bursts of action and then the final 30 minutes or so of pure non-stop shooting, fighting, blood and violence. What separates Soldier from other traditional action films is the lead character Todd: he's silent for most of the film, hardly shows any traces of emotion on his face and generally spends a whole lot of time looking around the world he does not understand, tilting his head while doing it like a bemused dog. Not being the typical "action hero" Todd is a character you either sympathize with or you don't. I didn't and because the film is all about that character, I found the film quite uninteresting.
Kurt Russell does a decent job with the character even though he hadn't much to work with. I oddly found myself thinking Todd as a robot from time to time, something he's not supposed to be (probably), I don't know if that is a positive thing or not but it certainly distracted me a few times. The supporting cast does OK job – Connie Nielsen and Jason Isaacs being the two "highlights"... of some sort at least.
Paul W. S. Anderson helms the director's seat and brings about some nice pictures and scenes but overall does nothing to be thrilled about. Maybe that's just what's wrong with Soldier; it's just so mediocre in all fields of production and film making. There's a lot of things going around (nice premise for a story, good looking sets etc.) and some hints of what could have been but it never quite gets "there" and in the end fails to deliver. 2/4
Equilibrium (2002)
...is George Orwell's "1984" as a Hollywood action flick...
...is George Orwell's "1984" as a Hollywood action flick. John Preston (Christian Bale), the feared and highly respected star of the one and only law enforcement unit, starts to question himself, his beliefs, the government and pretty much everything else around him - and kicks some ass while he does it.
Equilibrium is a decent movie, filled with talented actors, nice atmosphere. I personally wasn't thrilled about the "gun kata" fighting, which I think got too much attention. It felt to me as a failure to try and re-invent something as cool as the "bullet-time" in The Matrix. Also the dialog was a bit off from time to time and it got in the way of fluent story-telling. Other than that, Equilibrium is a movie I see as a couple of hours well spent. 2/4