Reviews

Excellent 3D CGI graphics with 2D character animations. And it works. Story is OK and characters are lifelike, but that's about it. The creators used too much stereotypical background story between main characters and the lead woman character becomes too typical weak female, which was rather disappointing. Jay's character could have been better but instead they resorted to go the easy way. This is too typical of Korean movies..

Also, in some points I would have liked to see more of the 2D animation and character interaction when the director seemed to prefer showing off with the 3D animation.

Anyway, worth the watching.

Identity begins with a nod to whodunnit-genre where people attempt with figuring out who is the murderer in the group. It's also resembling several horror movies where people get killed one by one. In the end it has some psychological background to keep things interesting. All of it is delivered nicely: the way plot advances, the way characters are believable and the way things are delivered (shown and heard). I'm keen to see what the writer (Michael Cooney) can come up with in other movies.

For the fans of the so-called "Hong Kong blood opera" -genre this movie is a must see. Great visual styling, great acting, excellent script with originality and good directing. There is constantly the feeling of great drama even in the occasional moment of stillness. When you've seen all the classics by John Woo then movies like this are where you should continue.

There's an interesting idea and some cleverness but somehow the jokes are not as funny as they could be. The movie could have some good drama (at least it attempts to have it) but the moment is over too soon and left too shallow. The references to movies like Matrix and Back to the Future don't work as well as they could - they seem merely additions made when the budget wasn't used completely. It's a nice try and can be entertaining but after it's over you won't miss it.

Rating: 6/10

The Transporter has some nice ideas, some comedy and is visually pleasing. Lots of the action seems familiar from many Hong Kong action flicks but it doesn't disturb the viewing. The beginning act with the driving sequence is better than most Hollywood movies. Plot isn't that original or the script but on the whole it delivers nicely. After Luc Besson's Taxi (1998) one wishes there would have been more driving sequences though.. Better than the Matrix sequels anyway.

When there's so many characters suitable to be the only main character you'll end up having to bounce from one sequence to another. There's very little of plot development amidst all the action that the movie consists of entirely.

Ok, to start: the first Matrix was a classic - no doubt about it. The second was watchable but nothing too remarkable. Third part (Revolutions) is very much the same as the second: only a sequel. In the first Matrix you see lots of one-on-one fighting even when fighting a group. In the second part there's still the hand-to-hand combat only with one man versus large group. In the third part it's almost entirely groups. There's no "slowing down" like the second had with the Architect but one thing they should have realised is not to use too many closeups: there's many places where you see flashes of something happening but before you can grok what it was it's already gone - I call it the "American Directing And Cutting" -syndrome. The same problem was even more annoying in Jet Li films like Kiss of the Dragon or The One - only those movies had less capable directing. If you've seen parts 1 & 2 already you're probably going to see this anyway. If you haven't seen those parts there's not much point in watching only this part. Let's hope the Matrix trilogy ends here - otherwise we'll see crappy sequels like Alien Resurrection.

The moment they approved the script this movie was doomed. Choosing a no-name director was perhaps the biggest mistake as one of the greats like Ridley Scott or James Cameron could still have saved to movie. Lead actors for John and Kate are dull and whiny, but also their characters have just nothing to do in the movie except the whining. There are some nice effects in some parts but most of the time it's just annoying. There's nothing original about it. I'd recommend watching Cypher instead but you'll probably want to see T3 anyway just for the sake of it (just like the creators counted you would). I'm betting there's going to be part 4 in the series as well and it will suck just as bad as Alien: Resurrection sucked.

The movie begins as a light-hearted comedy but will not stay for long. There are some excellent fight sequences (especially at the end) and sometimes the movie is very violent. A classic Hong Kong blood opera anyway, a must see for fans of the genre.

So Close is nothing like Charlie's Angels. Three beautiful women in the lead, two of them contract killers and one police. There is some drama-plot involved but that doesn't hold too well. Sometimes there are a few silly minor things but all in all the movie was very entertaining. Fight choreography was at least very interesting and quite original.

Rating: 7/10

Sex is Zero starts as a goofball comedy (and rather funny at that) but later adds Korean drama that shouldn't have been mixed with a comedy. There are some good laughs and both boys and girls mess up well occasionally. Most of the jokes only work in a movie and in context and as a surprise.

Ukkonen is a rather unique Finnish movie in that it is mostly action-based and surprisingly good at that too. One of the reasons for surpassing Finnish competitors (huh? are there really any to notice?) is perhaps the independent funding. A good but really too short movie.

Finding Nemo was rather boring and generally overrated really. You may find a couple of funny parts and several of that annoying Disney-mushiness but mostly it just doesn't deliver. I was rather disappointed after the movie.

I don't know where to start so here goes: Star Trek: Nemesis sucks. Terribly. The script apparently was thrown out early in the making. Next they brought in some corporate sponsors who brought completely unnecessary and (to Star Trek -universe) totally irrational vehicles in silly action sequences. (I'll dub this the Lucas -syndrome: The Movie Shall Have A Speedy Scene For Future Gaming Exploitations.) Then the actors just seemed tired at their parts (who wouldn't be after so much unchanging cliches?) and some were just casted in wrong parts. Star Trek was never about blowing things in pieces and Shoot-First-Ask-Later -mentality that seems to have grasped every small production company in the last decade or two. And in the end the action sequences sucked too (crappy imitation of heroism).

I can't describe how disappointed I was after seeing the fourth part in the famous Alien-saga, Alien: Resurrection. The first movie (Alien) was an excellent horror-movie by Ridley Scott. The second movie (Aliens) by James Cameron was decent action-style horror movie. The third one (Alien 3) had some idea but in part it lacked something as well. So I rented the fourth part and bad premonitions turned out to be even worse reality. I can't understand how they can make so CRAPPY sequel to a fine saga - acting is bad, the plot sucks and the script is something unimaginably awful. Please, bury this deep and forget it.

The Director's Cut (UK version, there are several slightly different versions) of Blade Runner is truly remarkable. The first version of the movie had the silly voice-over by Harrison Ford and a "happy-happy" -ending which spoil the movie entirely. Ridley Scott's vision of the story by Philip K. Dick is much darker, much more intriguing and is a rare masterpiece.