Reviews

12 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Cape Town (2015–2016)
4/10
Triply bad
28 September 2016
Warning: Spoilers
Give this thing a pass. First, it's bad in itself, despite having the iconic South African character actor Arnold Vosloo as the villain and the star of Norwegian crime series "Varg Veum", Trond Espen Seim, as the protagonist. They pointlessly wander around, Seim forced to spout clichéd "antisocial jerk" lines at whoever's available, mostly Boris Kodjoe's Snook, and Vosloo being pretty much nonexistent. The rest of the cast isn't much better, if not outright worse, with Marcin Dorocinski's Coolidge wandering around hungover and Isolda Dychauk's Irina being nothing more than swimsuit-clad eye candy. And to add insult to injury, even the quality of the camera work itself tanks for the last two episodes, the scene of human trafficking/murder investigation being shut down in episode 5 being particularly painful to watch. Second, it's a bad adaptation of the source material. The original A-plot involving the Mauser Killer was mangled to shoehorn Arnold Vosloo's Robin van Rees, a character not present in the book, as the mastermind behind the Killer's roaring rampage of revenge, despite leaving the most important detail of said rampage untouched. Worse yet, the bunch of nonsensical B-plots were tacked on instead of the book's bank robberies, and awkwardly tied into the main story, just to make Vosloo's villain even more villainous, and cartoonishly so. Third, the source material is a bad knockoff of the 1983 Clint Eastwood vehicle "Sudden Impact". That in itself should have made the decision to film it questionable, even twenty years after publication and over thirty since "Sudden Impact" premiered, if only for the shocking lack of originality. Seriously, you might want to watch "Sudden Impact" instead.
5 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Hitman (I) (2007)
5/10
Why, Fox, WHY?!
19 October 2008
In the beginning, there was a screenplay. A screenplay in which Agent 47 gets hired to assassinate a leading presidential candidate in Russia and then is hunted by Spetsnaz to eliminate all traces of the political intrigue. Suffice to say, it was a cool thing to read.

But then, "genius" producers from 20th Century Fox jump in and screw things up. As far as the visual side goes, it's not bad and Timothy Olyphant is pretty competent in his role, but the screenplay I mentioned was utterly BUTCHERED. To make things worse, a couple of good scenes were re-shot as annoying, pointless waste of film tape, the storyline was mangled to be barely understandable and to top it all off, someone hammered footage from "Dark Angel" in to confuse viewers even further. Traces of the original screenplay can be found, with changed locales and characters, but they're irreversibly damaged by the unacceptable changes forced by the producers.

The worst thing: there is no "director's cut" version. If there was one, it would be most probably better than what we got. Why, 20th Century Fox, WHY?!
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Postal (2007)
6/10
Deluded, angry, stupid and nonetheless funny
16 October 2008
As someone say, Uwe Boll is deluded. What happens when a deluded man makes a film about deluded people living in a deluded world? He goes Postal - mercilessly running over the paranoia, desensitization and absurdity of today. Of course, he does it in that specific German way - blunt, gross and sometimes disturbing, but the outcome is actually funny... Well, sometimes.

My previous experience with Boll's "hits" made me turn the TV off after hearing the first dialogue lines - but "Postal" was handled by a different writer, which makes it at least watchable. There are some overlong sequences, like Dude's speech during the trailer park shootout, but everything is pretty much coherent. As for the cinematography, there's one really good shot (inside the corporation building) among the rest of camera-work being only adequate. Acting is okay'ish, but don't expect much - just focus on the girls. ;) Overall - it can't be called "good", but if you're interested in B-movies, take a look. Uwe Boll did it - once in his whole career up to this point. Maybe he should really stay in comedy genre?
2 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Post Impact (2004)
2/10
P.I.: Pointless Idiocy
2 April 2008
To quote our indispensable forum members: "Blank tits! Lots of death! And bad actors!" It's all there, but sadly, any sense is out cold, acting is stiff, pacing is glacial and if there was any point in the movie, it was put on ice.

What happened: a comet smacked straight into Russia, sending dust into the atmosphere and screwing up the global climate, so to speak. I'm still wondering, who invented the "New United Northern States" name, but hey, nuns didn't save the world any time before, did they? Anyway, someone starts playing with a half-forgotten orbital microwave cannon (which failed to knock down that comet mentioned earlier, but apparently works pretty well as a WMD), so the nuns send in a crack(-smoking) team of special (needs) operatives, consisting of a dishonorably discharged hero, his dog, stuck-up colonel, owner of aforementioned blank tits and daughter of the WMD designer, to shut down both the cannon and whoever's fiddling with it.

What happens next, is a parade of bad CGI, cheap set decorations, cheesy acting, gratuitous display of blank tits, pointless subplots and cringe-worthy dialogue. So don't wonder why the reception was so frigid.
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Supreme Sanction (1999 TV Movie)
1/10
Rated 'R'. For 'Retarded'.
22 November 2006
The first question is: how many talentless idiots it takes to screw a movie up? Answer: one is more than enough, if he writes the screenplay and directs it. The second question is: did anyone teach the actors to handle guns properly? Answer: hell no. I wonder if Kristy Swanson got hit across the face with hot brass - because it damn seemed so! The third question is: how many times we did the "super secret government agency conspiracy gets uncovered from inside" plot? Answer: a good couple too many! The fourth question is: are Michael Madsen and Ron Perlman overrated? Answer: in this movie, sadly, yes. The fifth question is: can a pair of boobs save this movie? Answer: even three (Kristy Swanson's pair and the director/writer) didn't.

God... If I see the (most probably) assassin getting her guns ready for a hit, and then the morons from prop department give her a completely different set the first bloody thing in the goddamn movie, the "suck" meter hits the peak. Time from beginning of the movie to me switching the TV off: fifteen minutes. Just a little bit more than it took me in case of "Alone in the Dark".
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Cute actually.
20 August 2006
For only one time, Tom Green doesn't make an utter and complete jackass out of himself. This film is actually a nice family flick and I was surprised that it lacks any elements of the typical Tom Green routine.

While not terribly inventive (or, more exactly, predictable to boot) it's watchable. A guy, getting kicked out of each and every job, becomes a butler for a lonely mom with two kids, typical family movie cliché ensues. The guy himself isn't even a bit disgusting - maybe naive and a little lost, but nice and kind nonetheless. Who would suspect that Tom Green can actually be nice and act?

Good for a family afternoon with your kids.
8 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Silent Hill (2006)
8/10
The first good game-to-movie
31 July 2006
I wanted to see this movie the first moment I heard it will be made. The good news (director having at least one good horror movie in his resume, authors of the game having a degree of control over the production of the movie) encouraged me to go and actually see it. And I was not mistaken. I can say it's the first game-to-movie that is actually good. Not mediocre (like Resident Evil), not barely decent (like Tomb Raider), but a really good one. While not especially "scary", it keeps the dark atmosphere of the games, with all the psychological and emotional aspects.

Changes to the original plot are noticeable, but the new story behind the town and what happened to it is as good (or maybe even better) as the one told in the first game (which the movie is heavily based on). What's important, it still poses some questions, like all the games - touching the subjects of faith, devotion and dedication to family. There's no character that could be unanimously called "evil" due to his or her deeds and motivation - whether driven by faith in a misunderstood cause or the desire of "righteous" revenge, nobody in the movie comes out as saint or as the evil incarnate.

Visually, the movie is true to the original. The CGI effects blatantly stick out in some moments, but I'm still impressed by the quality of "monsters" - played by dancers and gymnasts. Their make-up may fondly remind you of what you saw in the games, but luckily, the "survival horror" moments are rare enough not to tire the viewers with constant barrage of bullets and repeated whacks of metal pipes (only one typical pistol clip worth of bullets is spent during the whole movie).

Go see it. Or own a DVD. This movie is great even if you didn't play any of the games.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Night Watch (2004)
6/10
Dumb. But cool to watch.
5 June 2005
Warning: Spoilers
What's it all about? In short: there are two groups of people gifted with supernatural powers: the Warriors of Light and Warriors of Darkness, maintaining balance by watching over each other. The "Night Watch" keeps an eye on the Warriors of Darkness, led by a guy with an impressive silvery fringe, named "Zavulon" (like some sorta drug...). The main character, notoriously hungover Anton, joins the Night Watch after trying to cut a shady deal with a witch - the Watch burst in the middle of a ritual involving something not very nice, and Anton...saw them. Yep, the Night Watch can turn invisible and you can't see them unless you are Different (that means, you have powers). So, Anton was trained and joined the team, running under the cover of Moscow Lighting Department, or "Gorsvet". All the fuss is about a child. Y'know, like in Star Wars: there will be born The One, who will turn the tide against one side or the other... We know how's it gonna end. We also have trouble with a vampire in love with her creator (who's got dusted by the Watch - and now she's totally P.O.'d) and a powerful curse that came only Devil knows where from. Maybe it's dumb and over the top, but in this genre it's hard to be original. Audiovisually, it's all right. F/X are top-notch (well, maybe some scenes are over the top), the acting's not that bad (but the hero looks like plagued by a monstrous hangover all the time - I don't know if it's on purpose), and the soundtrack is OK (if we are calling those three or so pieces a "soundtrack"...). If there's something to sneer at, it's more about dumb dialogues, hungover hero and over-exposed product placement than not-so-special effects.

Rating? Invite friends, buy a crate of beer and make a lot of popcorn. Dumb, but fun.
0 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Seriously overrated crap-wagon
22 April 2005
Warning: Spoilers
The game blows. Took me four hours to make it run and then I discovered how can one screw up a good engine that Source is. Indestructible bottles, goth chicks in red tights (look at them - their faces lack any details! They're just dancing mannequins with flat, low-res masks!) and no reason for using the physics system - remember where you had to put a stack of bricks on a plank to go further in HL2? And how can one screw up a good pen&paper roleplaying system that VtM is. Overly clichéd characters (a Prince with a three feet long stick up his a**, eight-foot tall Sheriff from nowhere, two Malkavians in one body, a Thinblood prophet - probably some Malkavian reject), equally clichéd scenario (couldn't that damn sarcophagus do anything else than go BOOM? I'd expect an Antediluvian or some Inconnu emerging and whacking everyone about!), not mentioning completely stupid way some of the Disciplines (mostly Domination, Auspex and Thaumaturgy) are designed and, what hurt me most, robbing your beginner character of half the dots a beginner character should have (yes, my Brujah made accordingly with VtM Rulebook has 3 Str, 4 Dex and 3 Sta while in Bloodlines I have lame-ass 1 Str, 3 Dex and 2 Sta - WTF is that? Am I Steven Hawking or something?!). To be quite honest, with my "rulebook beginner" stats the game is nothing more than an action/adventure game (I don't spend experience points I gain - no need for that). I just go here, whack one crazy sucker, go there, whack another one... The game was released done in maybe 1/3: screwed beta version of Source engine resulting in bulletproof glass and near-lack of using the physics system, flat-faced clubbers (take note of the girls with Sailor Moon hairdo and red tights - their faces lack any details), some weird teleportation magic going on in the chantry (no matter where you go, you'll get to Regent's room - the 'click' is noticeable, if not, try leaving an item on the last turn before Regent's room (glowing corridor), then turn back and walk into the other corridor - you'll pop almost right where you dropped the item!) and simply turning most NPCs into snacks on two legs makes this game to be stamped with a huge red "SUCKS" stamp. Bloodlines are boring and overrated. Some cool moments (haunted hotel and house of the dead) can't save it. Sorry, you're flushed.
1 out of 58 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
xXx (2002)
7/10
Stupid as every super spy movie. Fun as every super spy movie.
6 April 2005
Warning: Spoilers
*sigh* So, there we have a new breed of super agent. Beefed-up wise guy with anarchistic tendencies. That's who Xander Cage (Diesel) is - and hell, I like characters like that. First: we have an insane terrorist threatening the world with a prototype WMD. Overdone to death. And that organization name... "Anarchy 99" - who the heck invented this one?! I understand that Rob Cohen was on that anti-globalist hype and bearded guys in woodland cameo don't necessarily sell well, but anarchy has no sense whatsoever. Second: we have spy gadgets - not too little, not too much. The GTO is somewhat a pastiche or parody of "super spy car" - and that's planned. Three: we have evident mistakes, ie. Prague is shown being close to snowy mountains and and a medieval castle while in fact it's not - not counting the second motorbike escape scene it could be fixed with adding some travel scenes. Four: not all characters are played on equal level. Yes, you can fall in love with Asia Argento (I did ;) ), Samuel L. Jackson as Gibbons is nice to watch and Vin Diesel as the "tough-cookie smart-ass" is okay too, but Marton Csokas as Yorgi is terribly cheesy. I don't know if he was told to act like a mad villain from 60's movies or did he screw it all up himself, but he's irritating.

To be honest: it IS stupid, but which super spy movie isn't? I think only "The World Is Not Enough" tried to be quasi-realistic, but this is a matter for another discussion. Anyway, XXX is stupid and that's why it's fun to watch. Because you know it's not serious.

I had fun. 7/10.
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Grim. Gritty. Great.
6 April 2005
Warning: Spoilers
James Bond can still kick ass if you don't give him his toys. And he damn does. I think it's the best of the series, as it's dark and quite realistic for a James Bond movie. The "superspy" is forced to act quickly, hide in shadows and think fast. Doesn't have his miraculous gadgetry (apart from the warehouse scene, when he uses the hidden Stinger to take out the helicopter), so the plot is automatically less cheesy. The pipeline chase and finale might be over the top, but apart from that, the film is well made. We even see M herself recalling old operative tricks.

The actors play their parts well, even Goldie (who's a DJ, not a professional actor) isn't bad as Zukovski's clumsy aide. Anyway, when you have Pierce Brosnan, Sophie Marceau and Judi Dench, they simply can't screw up.

Action is well-balanced too, as some directors tend to go overboard and blow stuff up through 3/4 of the film (John Woo, anyone?). Even the villain isn't THAT cliché - "I'm gonna die anyway, so I'll better do it with a bang." I don't recall many movies with a plot like that.

9/10. Own a DVD, because this film owns.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Unspeakable (2002)
3/10
Shameless spoiler. I SAID: SPOILER!
29 August 2004
This is what you get if you have some second-league actors (Henriksen, Fahey, Hopper) and a mentally retarded screenwriter (or American, or American and mentally retarded). I thought it'll be better.

It wasn't. Nothing made sense: bug that got into Hopper's brain from nowhere, a prisoner that should be shot on the spot instead of being repeatedly thrown to the ground and mauled, hallucinations, sexual fascinations, litres of red paint, surviving the electric chair just to be finally shot by the key female character... As someone said here: "unspeakably bad film". Bad with capital, bold, red 'B'. 'B' as in 'budget'.
6 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed