Reviews

Is it a complete waste of time? Not if you liked all the cape movies or the Hobbit, in fact this is a masterpiece compared to anything Hollywood comes up with these days. There are better (old) movies out there, and the special effects are worse than movies that are 20 years old, but compare it to the latest movies and it has a 10/10 everything, I'm only giving it a 8/10 because it's somewhat predictable. In all seriousness, it was OK-ish, not great, not terrible and at least the main actress can act, as well as Cary Elwes, unlike the rest of the cast that was meh at best but not quite comedy worthy although Dean Morgan's acting was yikes at times indeed. Would I recommend it? Only if you have nothing else to watch, it was midly entertaining, and I certainly don't regret watching it.

Actually good-ish. In short: Good character development for Adonis, his girlfriend/wife and Rocky, decent main plot but the good training montages of the Rocky movies were like a character in themselves, in this movie the training montage isn't good enough for me, also the scrip lacks a proper villain backstory - both of which aren't overwhelming things to achieve since they were done properly before.

I didn't go in with high expectations so the movie was actually a lot better than I expected - I was expecting something akin to the Disney Star War movies or something made purely for commercial gain, it wasn't. The plot develops Adonis' story and character a lot but it lacked a developed "villain", unfortunately we didn't really get much of Viktor Drago, his motivation and his ambitions other than his dad, Ivan Drago, pushing him from behind and very few moments of his mother. I didn't like the training montage either, I feel like the movie didn't know if it wanted to be a classic Rocky movie or not. There was drama regarding Adonis' family but in the end it's not resolved in any way (it doesn't even seem to affect Adonis after Rocky simply told him a few words). Viktor Drago was played well for what the script allowed the actor to do but If the movie was 30 minutes shorter or if those 30 minutes were spent on developing Adonis' rival then it could have possibly be a movie of the year. Good effort.

I'm unsure what the audience is suppose to be considering one can see people getting killed, regardless the movie has a very stupid plot, very stupid action and very stupid ending. To sum it up, interracial(interspecies) superhero versus evil misogynistic racist nationalistic dictator. I'm not even making this up, it's the writer that actually made it this, but it's even worse than I'm writing it, since it actually has a "magic negro" (look it up on wikipedia) at one point (I'm not talking about Cyborg).

As you might have guessed, this movie is full of bad stereotypes.

A few sub-plots and anti-logic events:

-Superman has the hots for Wonder Woman, kisses her then takes her on a date but as soon as Lois Lane appears he backpedals very fast;

-Aquaman looks in his mid 20s-30s and acts like a shy 15 years old kid when it comes to romance (the same with Cyborg);

-whales are summoned at the bottom of the ocean (in real life they would die from the pressure long before they reach that depth);

-a Megalodon is summoned;

-a giant tsunami is created bent on hitting the East Coast of the USA, but then is stopped on purpose by the same Atlantian invaders so they can just march in (what's wrong with letting the tsunami hit, drowning most of the surface dwellers and then killing off the survivors? my guess is the only explanation would be that they feared they would pollute the oceans);

-without explanation the US army waits for them as the tsunami is about to hit, then the tsunami disappears (I have no idea how they knew it would do that, even if they were warned by Batman about the Atlantian invasion), then they order the king of Atlantis to surrender... and we're speaking about a military force (the Atlanis army) that in the lore has no problem in conquering the surface world and killing the superheroes;

-the war ends by the stupidest deus ex machina plot I've seen: Cyborg records the king of Atlantis admitting that he killed their former queen;

-Aquaman, a bum for 20-30 years, suddenly wants to become the king of a civilization he has nothing in common with, other than his blood;

-Batman and most of the Justice League have no problem sitting at the bottom of the ocean wearing only breathing masks, etc. etc. etc. etc.

The entire plot is filled with stupid action and plot holes that could only pass if a kid was watching this, and I wouldn't let a kid watch this as it has people killing other people (shown directly).

Very, very, very disappointed by this, it's the worst animated movie I saw, even if I could forgive the plot and say "well, they're politically motivated to show things like black people at the bottom of the ocean, and it's just a cartoon about fictional characters (awaiting a black king Arthur for the lulz)", but I can't forgive absolutely 0 logic bs like whale and normal people (with no gear on) at the bottom of the ocean not imploding from the pressure (especially since even Cyborg admits at the start that he couldn't do it if he didn't remove his lungs, so wtf).

If you saw the newest Noah movie, with Russell Crowe, then that's what you should expect in this movie. It's not historical, it's not Biblical, it's not anything more than a twisted director's spit on what both history and religious documents say about the people involved and the time period.

The movie also has some idiotic elements: Sub Saharan blacks in Egypt ruled by Nordic Europeans, Jews building the pyramids (lol, the Great Pyramids were build at least 1000 years before Moses was even born, wtf), Jews burning (lol), Ramses (one of the best rulers of Egypt) portrayed as very dumb and as a stereotypical Nazi villain, etc.

What I'd say to the director: cool story br0, at least you tricked religious people into giving you money for some bs.

It's not a historical anything, it's just a "personal drama" over 10 episodes, with little to do with real life fighting, or how real life soldiers act, it does show some brutal stuff but it's put there only to let the viewers know it was indeed a brutal war in real life, but these are raw elements in an otherwise bland 10 episodes.

The characters are not interesting and fake, the plot isn't interesting either, in fact it's typical American war movie: 1) don't show the real reason we are at war, fed the public some bs; 2) of course Americans get to have girlfriends of every nationality they want, because they're Americans; 3) personal drama and so called transformations on characters that clearly never existed in real life(and even by some miracle if they did, it's clearly not based on their actions); 4) portraying the enemy as SUPER STUPID(all the Japanese soldiers in this movie only know how to banzai charge and die like idiots), and SUPER EVIL, as if the poor Americans are hated for no reason at all; 5) portraying the Americans as fighting "a just cause", good vs. evil, and blaming the enemy for all the evil in the world, and brainwashing the average public that has no idea about history with this bs propaganda.

As I said, the characters, scenes, plot, action etc. are all weak, I feel like I wasted my time watching what some guy believes happened in WW2 and not what actually happened or at least firmly based on what actually happened instead of some irrelevant and fake drama of non-existing people.

Thanks for wasting my time, HBO.

The idea of the movie is OK, but the implementation of it is horrible, so basically if you're interested in indoctrinating your kids with the idea/message that "all men are the same" and that all women that aren't educated act "stupid" and that women that have education must act like boys and consider all men as inferior(a farm animal being superior)/not needed, and presents a confusion of pseudo-religious and social concepts with the intent of preparing your kid for the next level of leftist indoctrination when he grows up, then, this is the movie for you. I gave the 4/10 because it's not boring but not good either(even with politics aside).

The movie is suppose to be the real story of an American prisoner of war in the hands of the Japanese, how he got to there, also his early life and the time spent as a POW.

I found the story acceptable and inspirational, as a real story could be, and I frankly appreciate that no "extra" elements were added, like the ever present romance we find in movies today, or political views, which would have made it a mediocre movie at best.

It really feels like the experience of a rebel individual, that changed his ways and grew up into a strong man, strong enough to return to his family with his head high, and in the end strong that he could forgive his enemies.

I also found that title is well chosen to represent the story of a man we should all strive to be like, unbroken.

I recently watched the movie again, I have to say that I had a much more positive view on it back then as I do now(I was tempted to give it a 6).

Craig David is a new kind of James Bond, more aggressive, more traumatized by his past, more... barbarian, this isn't meant as a critique, I actually liked both Craig and the Bond he portrays. The problem is that it's the only novelty this movie and the new James Bond movies have to offer. As with every Bond movie you have a guy going on vacation in exotic places, having sex with beautiful women and "fighting bad guys"(which of course he does it openly, and in the most glamorous way possible, and everybody, especially the bad guys, know who he is).

I don't know what to make of the movie's love story, which is a main plot element of this movie and the next one, for me, let's say I find it hard to believe they instantly go from one scene where they almost hate each others' style, to being madly in love. While this type of inconsistent behavior might be easy to imagine for women, I would find it especially hard to imagine it for James Bond.

Overall the movie is entertaining, I definitely don't regret watching it, it fact I will probably watch it again at some point in the future, but seeing people say this movie is for James Bond movies what "The Dark Knight"(or any of the Christian Bale Batman movies) is for the Batman movies is a overstatement, as it doesn't revolutionize the story and dynamism of James Bond in such an extreme way, and the new James Bond movies lack the great villains that Batman had, especially one of the caliber and charisma of the Joker. Although acceptable, none of the villains Bond faces will remain in your memory.

A solid, realistic, first half of the movie, with good action and dialogue, but I feel the 2nd half is too unrealistic, and again we have the typical American portrayal of German soldiers as being stupid(and the belief that somehow German women are all prostitutes willing to sleep with Americans). The only character that I didn't like was Brad Pitt's character, as in other movies he is some maniac "killing gnazis" and being that fanatical about it that he sacrifices almost his entire crew and himself towards that goal, although they could have easily live to fight another day. My favorite character was Shia LaBeouf's character, he seemed the most believable of all(a loyal friend, a fighter and a Christian).

4 minutes into the movie, and you're already presented with the Germans driving a T-34-85 without any German markings, in fact it still has the Soviet Red star. Worse is the fact that the German infantry is, unhistorical, fighting: 1) in front of the tanks; 2) too close to to the tank; 3) German tank crews using the commander's cupola during a fight and getting shot, which is both down right stupid and unhistorical 4) German tanks fighting American tanks in 20 meters radius or less in open ground. I don't mind about the visual effects that seem to be from early 2000s PC game about World War 2, in quality, but I can make a recommendation to the producers in using a real life Hetzer and/or Panzer IV H instead of a real life Soviet T-34-85 to depict a German real life vehicle, as the Hetzers are cheap and readily found and still made for historical reenactment events all over Europe, and along with the Panzer IV, were one of the most produced German vehicles in the entire war, and it also makes no sense to depict (computer generated) German Tiger 1 tanks standing so close to each other. So besides the stereotype in American movies that German soldiers are some idiots that can't fight, you can also see things like most of the actors being a bit too old and fat to serve on the front as they are presented(normal, low ranked, soldiers), a guy having a cigar in his mouth but without being lit; a Wolverine(M10 tank destroyer) being called a tank, while it's trying to flank the T-34-85 which is spinning it's turret 360 degrees for no apparent reason; a German Volkssturm sitting in from of a German tank that's trying to fire at another Wolverine 20 meters ahead of them, and said Volkssturm troops shooting a German soldier and American soldier with his pistol apparently unconcerned about the battle(the T-34-85's gunner and the rest of the crew also seem unconcerned about the infantry fight right next to them); a tropical(*sarcasm) rain in France stopping 1 second after two soldiers finish talking, the camera changes, and they decide to attack; said soldiers throwing hand grenades into the T-34-85's driver's hatch and commander's cupola which the Germans were nice enough to leave open in battle, against all logic and military tactics; the Wolverine then decides to go solo inside heavy forested enemy territory with no prior scouting, and again the Germans dumb enough to shoot them with light rifle fire and from the front, as soon as they spot the Wolverine, instead of waiting for the Americans to pass by them so they can shoot from behind; then the Americans doing a Rambo and killing off every German they meet in the forest with no effort, as they keep moving, and apparently none of the Germans had a grenade, a Panzerfaust or anti-tank grenades(considering it was an open top Wolverine, any grenade would do, regardless); the Wolverine magically remaining without fuel although it has an operational range of almost 200 miles; the Evil German™ military, in all it's wisdom, starts prioritizing an orphanage's nun over the American army, because the Evil German™ is also a Very Dumb Chaotic Evil German™; then followed by Non-Evil American™ airforce about to liberate™ and bring tons of democracy™ via strategic bombardment over a forested area, surrounding countryside and the said orphanage, then the black US soldier trying to convince the sergeant to save the ORPHANS from the tons of democracy™ by saying "they might not be our kids, but they are someone's kids", then the Americans suddenly start caring about the safety of random civilians(while the US government historically ordered the bombings of most cities in Europe and Asia with massive civilian deaths) that the Evil Germans™ hold hostage(although with no real value for any sides to do so), etc... 1/10 don't bother with this.

I don't mind that much that the movie has little to do with history(Vlad wasn't a vampire, he was born in Transylvania but he ruled Wallachia, he fought the Turks for more than 3 days, the Sultan never died etc.) but this movie doesn't have much logic to it: he turns against the Turks on a whim(because, apparently, his wife would rather see a war with the Ottoman empire, than her son be taken hostage) then thinking he can't win, without even trying, he instantly tries to cheat his way out by going to the vampire(not knowing if he will insta-kill him or not, like it almost happened the last time), without making any defense preparations in his leave. During this time, the Turks magically summon an army and are already attacking Vlad's Castle, although the border distance from Transylvania and the Ottoman Empire, at that time, was over 200km(that would make Erich von Manstein and Heinz Guderian, the architects of Blitzkrieg via Armored Warfare, jelly), not to mention that the Turks would have to attack fortified mountain passes to even get into Transylvania...and that neither Transylvania or Wallachia payed tribute to the Ottoman empire at that time. It would make me think the Turks have supernatural powers that include premonition and super-fast travel speed, which they make use again to send an army over the border and catch up with the Transylvanians(moving away to another castle where "they would be safer") although they take precautions and move fast, in less than 1 day(my guess is that the Turks were using hax). Anyway, Vlad catches up to this 2nd Turkish army and destroys it, then the next day the Turks again pull a Flash and start attacking the castle, but this time they make use of another hax, they went through the castle walls as Vlad was busy killing their 3rd army, get to Vlad's wife and push her over into a massive fall from the castle, Vlad tries to help, fails, and the wife, instead of thanking Vlad for the sacrifices he made and realizing how stupid she was, she again asks Vlad to do something stupid, and drink her blood(to permanently become a vampire), which he does... the end disappoints me the most, it took 600 years for the Master Vampire to call for Vlad's aid, but, although the movie makes it undeniable that it uses the Christian dogma, and that there is heaven and hell, demons and vampires, apparently Buddhism is also there, as Vlad's wife magically reincarnates... facepalm material. The story is poorly written, it always feels that a lot of the plot elements are missing, I'm thinking they cut a lot of scenes out, which would have made it a more decent movie, but because that it has nothing to do with history(even less than Bram Stoker's Book), Bram Stoker's Book(at least it's a story about a Vampire named Dracula, which relates the two), logic and that the characters themselves seemed to be plagued by emotions and stupidity, I can't rate this higher than 4 out of 10. You gain nothing and lose nothing by watching or not watching it.

If you've seen the 1st movie then you'll be very disappointed by the 2nd! the 1st movie had, as plus, hot women(there are some in this movie too but they seem like cheap escorts compared to most of the girls in the original) and it had charismatic actors(even if some actors were not so good, I'm talking about the three "northern guys" who were friends) and it had some cool death scenes, and I really enjoyed the first one with Miss Pussycat.

So what does "2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams" have to offer? most of the original actors(talking about those in the ghost town) are not present in the movie(a very big minus), in fact it's very lame, since the new actors can't act at all! You'll also hear lame swearing and other lame stuff, the death scenes are also lame in this movie, in fact the whole movie is boring! If they wanted to kill up a good horror setup and a promising 1st movie then CONGRATULATIONS! this movie ruined it.

PS I also enjoy that in this 2nd movie they can't make up their minds if the mayor's eyepatch goes on his left eye or on his right eye.

No wonder this is rated the worst Austin Powers movie, I still wonder how it got so much money, probably from a lot of people expecting to see more of what was in the first two movies of the series, which isn't the case.

For me, LAME is the perfect word to sum up this movie.

The next few lines will contain the few spoilers I'm prepared to give: The start of the movie couldn't get any worse, the "celebrity appearances", the faces of Austin Powers and Doctor Evil, such as Doctor Evil's changed eye color, not to mention Austin Powers looks like an old pervert that had botox injections(you could argue that it's to add to the comedy but he still looks different from the other movies), rater than a middle-aged secret agent, and ,the fact, that it's weird for a British secret agent to wave American flags, especially since he never did it in the other movies and it's unrelated to spying or comedy(what this movie is suppose to be about).

Also, let's not forget the main plot: nothing special, funny, smart, well made or original about it, "son goes to find his father".

It's unlike the first movies and it wasn't enjoyable, even if I'd pretend the other movies didn't exist.

I first saw part of it on TV and saw it mention on a documentary, so of course I got to see the movie eventually, it doesn't contain any sort of historic realism but for me it's a decent, even good, watchable movie.

The movie starts with "This story, though fiction, is based on fact." the only facts is based upon is that Genghis Khan did unite the Mongols and eventually defeated the tartars(which happens during the movie), but don't expect anything else, the actors don't look, dress or talk like real Mongols but I don't have anything with this as I consider it 99.99% fiction and don't expect realism. It does however have that romanticism of the age and from an action-adventure perspective, watching this movie wasn't a waste of time at all, in fact it was quite interesting.

I've seen a lot of other movies who are worse(and still claim to be realistic), this movie doesn't claim to be real ,it's just vaguely inspired from real life and I for one did enjoy it as a classic action-adventure movie(with a touch of comedy here and there, intentionally or not), my vote for the movie overall would be 6/10 towards 7/10(because the story itself was quite fun to watch unfold).

It's low rating is surprising to me, considering it doesn't claim itself to be historic but is fun to watch.

I watched the 1st two movies, the 1st one was interesting,the 2nd wasn't so good(unfortunately) but this is the worse movie I've seen in some good years...1st of all it doesn't follow the original story at all, the main character is more of a secondary one, the scrip for this movie is worse than for B movies, I wouldn't recommend this to anyone, the 1st 30 min. there is also a big BS about Romania(the movie was filmed in UK,USA and Germany), the director,producer and scrip writer certainly have some ghetto gypsy fantasies with Russian accents, this is a big tarnish, 1 second of it wasn't true & I wish for them to pull their heads out of their ... the acting is horrible and the scenes are also very poor quality, only the mentally challenged(like the guys who made the movie)or those that don't know left from right(let alone anything about football) would consider this movie watchable.