Reviews

Now after 2+ years of it's theatrical release Mortal Engines is known as the biggest financial flop in cinematic history. The effort to make this movie a blockbuster hit and a start for a franchise are evident throughout: the near constant large-scale special effects and great swells of the orchestral score when yet another "thrilling" action scene is upon the viewer - and they come like clockwork, as if engineered by a commission. There is also not-too-subtle pandering towards the chinese market.

Yet, this movie suffers on many levels. The characters are wafer-thin ("despite" the heavy use of flashbacks) so it is hard to get invested in their fates. The story tries to focus on the two main characters, yet also drags in too many side characters, with all serving a one-dimensional archetype with backstories explained in dialogue. The storytelling never finds any sort of balance, jumping from heavy underlining exposition to jarringly abrupt scenes that I suppose are meant to keep up the suspense, which is nonexistent due to aforementioned lack of investment and the fact that sweeping shots full of CGI stop having any weight or momentum after we've been saturated with them nearly the whole runtime.

I do not enjoy plotholes or pointing out poor screenwriting. Yet I've noticed that if a movie is captivating enough, I do not mind them; while a movie that has no grasp on me seems to shine it's spotlight on its weaknesses. Here it feels like too many set-ups were resolved swiftly enough to be practically discarded, while at the same time many scenes employed a particular deus ex machina where a "surprise" came from something that was off-camera for the audience, even though the characters in the movie should've noticed it. And though the movie is of the fantasy genre, it is very hard to maintain the illusion of disbelief when so much of the plot is forwarded through either overblown reactions of the characters or winning-the-lottery levels of happenstance.

Despite adequate acting and many technical aspects which were not displeasing, I firmly believe we all have better ways to spend two hours than watching this movie.

I don't think I could dislike the movie that gave us both Machete and Zeus.

In all seriousness though, Runaway Train might just be the best film to come out from the crap-factory known as Cannon Group. Unsurprisingly this gem is based on a script by someone head and shoulders above the pack, this being here Akira Kurosawa. But no man is an island, and it takes considerably more than a script to make a movie. Jon Voight and Eric Roberts might provide the best performances I've seen from either one in a chilling setting that beautifully emphasizes the desperation of the characters in both their current predicament and life in general.

In addition to compelling cinematography, this Cannon film also surprises the viewer with yet another aspect sorely missing in many of their films: character development. This films grips the viewer on so many fronts and doesn't let go. The Runaway Train might be without a driver, but the film about it very much in control of its own fate, from beginning to end. I was pleasantly surprised by the way the movie almost poetically wraps itself done before the credits roll like any properly told story should.

It saddens me to realize how often overlooked this movie is. Before the Cannon Group documentary Electric Boogaloo I don't remember any mention of it, even though I've scanned quite some of their catalogue in search of "so bad it's good" b-movies (and boy, do they deliver that in a steaming pile!)

However, Runaway Train is in a completely different category, and despite some minor flaws I do heartily recommend it to anyone even vaguely interested in it. Such poetry in film never comes too often to our screens, so it should be savoured at every chance.

This film is much better than it has any right to be. Made with a modest budget but a loving touch, WolfCop knows to embrace its cheesiness and that of its drive-in schlock predecessors and play to its strengths without taking itself too seriously. Whenever it falls flat, it feels more endearing than broken, which I suppose is due to the makers actually caring about what they were filming, and I'll take a lovingly crafted low-budget slopfest over an a-list blockbuster that wasn't given a single rat's behind by it's authors.

With that being said, there isn't really anything that stands out as exceptionally good. Although the fun had while filming is apparent and the enthusiasm of the effects department (if such can be said to have existed here) shines through, nothing can be graded more than "pretty good, considering". On the flip side of things, I couldn't find anything really horrible here either, as WolfCop is adept at covering its tracks (pun intended).

Booming with b-movie grit and outrageously strange choices of plot elements, WolfCop is a must watch for fans of "so bad it's good" – films and those interested in amateur films. Other viewers might need to take this movie with a grain of salt. And quite some alcohol.

For once I'm almost lost for words. This "film" is an incomprehensible mess even for a battle-hardened b-fan like myself. Any adjective I can think to describe this piece is unavoidably followed by an addendum "of the worst kind". Amateurish. Trippy. Inexcusable. I really hope the makers of Roller Blade Seven had fun, because I certainly did not.

Reading through the other reviews I feel like preaching to the choir here. Even though some have taken it upon themselves to call this garbage artistic or non-traditional, even revolutionary (judging by their profiles they are true DGJ devotees), there does still exist a line between having your own unique voice in art and falling extremely flat while trying to be "artsy". For the benefit of film as a form of art and entertainment and as a warning to those aspiring to partake in the process of creating films we should call spade a spade here and give the nauseating misuse of stock called Roller Blade Seven the loathing it deserves.

Trying to dissect this film is borderline impossible, as everything on both sides of the camera seems to be so irredeemably off. It has no place in a theatre, home collection, and even for a low-budget museum of post-modern art it would be like a bird dropping in a cappuccino. How this hideous miscreant has escaped to be viewable by the public oblivious to the horrors they're about to witness I do not know.

Heed the warnings and avoid this mess that unashamedly calls itself a movie at all costs.

I get the feeling that here they wanted the kills of a horror movie, combined with some Reservoir Dogs intrigue spat in for good measure. Unfortunately quite some flaws limit the thrill of the kills and the intrigue is lacking.

The acting is not problematic, but it's not engaging either. Especially casting Ving Rhames, who's acting... well, a Ving Rhames, really takes me off the movie. And all the younger female actors look more like swimsuit models than professional killers. Don't get me wrong, my eyes like the candy as much as the next guy's, but if your hands look more used to holding a designer clutch bag than a handgun or a potent blade, I see no reason why you would even share a room with potentially hostile and definitely more physical male killers.

Also, I didn't find myself laughing at any point. Not that the attempts at humor were somehow embarrassing, but they were just so out-of-place here. They would've been more at home in a sitcom or a teen movie.

Lastly, while the variety of weapons wielded was commendable, the violence wasn't disturbingly cold or overwhelmingly blazing hot, it just kinda was and happened. And the cgi-blood didn't do the flatness any favors.

All'n'all, it wasn't a total disaster, but if a splatter comedy is to be recommended, this is not it. Tucker & Dale vs Evil or Severance do the sub-genre more justice, not to mention any such film by Pegg and/or Frost.

Pro wrestlers foraying into the world of movies seems to be some kind of a thing nowadays, and I can completely understand it: Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson did it well, The music business has the cross-platform promotion working for them, and, like Seagal and Van Damme have proved years before, acting skills are not a mandatory requirement to act in an action movie.

Maybe in order to avoid the embarrassment that former wrestler Hulk Hogan must (or at the very least should) feel from being associated with such notorious crimes against the art of movie-making as No Holds Barred, Mr. Nanny, Santa with Muscles, and The Ultimate Weapon, the WWE is holding the reins all the way here.

As the title reveals, this film is a sequel to The Marine starring oh- so-wooden John Cena, though in spirit only. Unlike the aforementioned film, and also earlier Santa's Slay, The Marine 2 doesn't luckily ride so much on the name of it's main actor, as Ted Dibiase jr. was, at least at the time of the filming, quite some way away from wrestling main events.

With this being said, the films plays it very safe. The flaws of the script and the actors and the uninspired director are hidden from view, which is a sound idea, but it inevitably results in an unsurprising film wading through various tropes and clichés. But I dare to say that cinematographic delights were never in the plans, as this film is destined to be a vehicle to boost the momentum of Ted DiBiase jr., the wrestler, not the actor.

And to everyone's pleasant surprise, The Marine 2 might just achieve it with enough entertainment for all viewers to have positive memories of the film. This is great, considering how much worse it could've been with all the ingredients involved. It has decent action, I can't recall anything cringe-worthy, and it doesn't offend. Though I usually for those yearning for wrestler-films I recommend Road House, They Live, and Predator, a single viewing of The Marine 2 does get my blessing. Not much anything, but not a waste of time, either. AND it is better than "the original" The Marine.

Red Water is a made-for-TV movie about a shark terrorizing Louisiana waters, and eventually meeting up with a few locals, business people on a venture, and a pack of criminals. So the only sensible thing to do as the opening credits start to roll is to lower expectations and open a refreshing drink of your choice. Little did I know I was in for a positive late night surprise, as this film could have been so much worse.

The main selling point of this film, the shark, is more than tolerable and rarely over-exposed. Considering the budget limitations they must've worked with it is actually quite impressive. The music and cinematography are fitting, and the professionalism exhibited here makes for a refreshing change for us foolish enough to sit through a B-grade film or two per weekend. The story is, surprisingly enough, that of a blood-thirsty shark going after some empty-headed college girls on vacation, another plus on a b-movie with a shark, and the way it softly meanders keeps the viewers invested even during the slower periods.

But what really make this film stand out among the B's and made-for-TV's are the characters. The acting is, even with the risk of over-using an adjective, surprisingly good, and it does positively seem that the script has received more than just a passing thought during the writing process. The dialogue seems natural enough, not every technical word is explained among characters who should already know what they mean, and there are some actually nice touches that breathe life into these characters and the relationships between them.

With all the b-movies of very varying levels of enjoyability flying around, Red Water is like a breath of fresh air. A living proof, that even little budget can produce films that are nice to pass some time with. A bargain bin movie with subtlety? A rare find indeed, considering that the track record of the director includes the screenplay for Gymkata, a notorious stinker, a true bore, and a box office bomb. Chapeau!

Like it was mentioned before, the movie had every reason not to any good. Thankfully, instead of sneaking through with minimal effort, the makers of this film decided not to have any of the staples I was expecting. Like cheap effects over-staying their welcome, over-using a known-rapper-turned-actor, contemporary yet cheaply available pop music, and hyper-extending a story of 30 minutes to a feature length.

Of course, in the end IT IS just a made-for-TV movie about a blood- thirsty shark, but everything else that goes on while and in between the said shark is making it's appearance makes this one worth the watch. Even if no refreshing drinks are readily available.

Money Train is nothing spectacular, but it definitely is worth every minute it takes to watch it. The direction does what it is asked to do, and it enables the very capable cast to take the action-comedy just where it wants to go. The film does not reach any higher it has chances to go to, so it ends up nailing all it's set targets.

The plot is simple enough to follow without activating too many brain cells, yet it is engaging enough to create much enjoyable tension that leads to the eventual conclusion of the film. And here we have the pleasure of Harrelson and Snipes working the chemistry they already showed in White Men Can't Jump.

To be honest, I can not say this film is a gem. There is nothing extremely spectacular or exciting or touching. But like I wrote earlier, it's not trying, either, but what it tries to accomplish, it manages to. And with such good workers involved in this film, the result can only be enjoyable.

Much over-shadowed by another action comedy from the same year, Bad Boys, for me Money Train is one of those films that define what this type of films should always set out to do. Nowadays action-comedies either push too much on the action, and the comedy drowns in all the bruises and splatter, or the attempt to squeeze as many laughs as possible leaves out the excitement of action and thus the films fall flat without a good drive.

Money Train also benefits from being very much a product of the nineties. It's not campy, takes itself seriously enough, and thus has aged well so far, and I see no reason why it shouldn't stay a solid 110 minutes of entertainment whenever it gets screened.

Centurion is the fourth film by Neil Marshall, the director previously responsible for the films Dog Soldiers, The Descent, and Doomsday. So it can be expected that when it comes to action Mr. Marshall should deliver.

And deliver he does. The action parts are, if occasionally suffering a bit from slight excess and shaky camera, a pleasure for the viewer. The thought and dedication that went into making them is visible. It has to be noted though, that the amount of graphic violence on screen will definitely be too much for those who think that eg. Robocop or Sabotage are too violent.

That is, however, where the praises end. The acting present is good, yet nothing spectacular, and the delightful action scenes would benefit from more flesh in the story to makes the viewer more engaged. The Eagle, that in theory could be a sequel to Centurion, had that side covered better, even with the less-inspired direction and acting. Maybe combining these two would make a real gem of a movie?

All and all, this film is worth a watch for those with a bit of taste for action or historical movies, and maybe even a re-watch for those with more than just a bit of that aforementioned taste. No damnatio memoriae required here.

There is no doubt about the level of realism exhibited in Black Hawk Down. The explosions look more like real explosions compared to the fuel explosions we're used to, the fog of war is dense throughout, and the steep difference in skill between trained soldiers and angry men with automatic weapons is clearly visible. I was reminded of a recent Vice documentary about the Malian Army's fight against their local rebels where in the end the French army had to come and clear the village like a deus ex machina when the local force couldn't.

Well, realism is expected when based-on-real-life-events meets Ridley Scott. And realism, to an extent, is good. But here it seems to highlight the testosterone-fueled romanticism we are fed with in between all the shooting and mayhem, which just doesn't sit. In a more drama- like war film it wouldn't bother me that much, but when the tone of the movie is the same as in a military recruitment video, it sticks out like a sore thumb.

The grittiness of a shootout, with dust and mud getting everywhere, the numbing stress, the mix of utter fear and cold determinism, those all come across here. But the drama part, the content this movie advertises itself with, is a bit cheesy to my tastes and exposed with the well-done fight sequences. Soldiers under fire are not in shambles, I should know, but neither are they spitting out instantly quotable lines or delivering moving monologues at every opportunity.

No such film should be expected to be deep philosophical dives into various serious questions about human nature. Every such film, however, should be expected to deliver entertainment, at the very least worth the time it takes to watch that film. Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow sounds and looks like something dreamed up while making the brilliant computer game series Fallout, yet it plays out like a cheap Easter egg: the covering is sweet chocolate, made with intent to please children, but if you don't care about it much the sugary surface is soon broken. But when the egg reveals itself to be hollow, no amount of candy can dry those tears of disappointment.

This movie is all about that chocolate covering. Yet, no matter how hard the big-name actors act, the awe and fear and whatnot are just not conveyed as it is quite obvious that they don't see what we see, they see the monotonous blue screen. Not nearly as bad as in the Star Wars prequels, but setting a trend. And what they're trying to achieve with the visuals is really just a repetition of old pulp and film-noir, which was done well (and better than here) with smart lighting and set design back in the day. So no distinctive visuals like in Sin City, another film completely filmed with blue screen.

So why all the fancy tricks? The story is simplistic, in a way that it resembles a dieselpunk story written by a 10-year-old. No surprise then that this film was a long lasting dream of the first-time director, Mr. Conran.

The entire movie was shot in 26 days, Laurence Olivier was brought back from the grave thanks to modern technology, and Conran had his dream fulfilled with a plethora of homages and nods to those that came before him. All these things are nice, but random niceties don't make a compelling film. As proved by this film, they don't even come close.

As is usual with highly personal projects, the makers have hard time distancing themselves from their work and thus can't see the flaws of their pet project. Sometimes it doesn't matter much, as for example Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia is the same wretched brilliance that characterized the existence of it's creator, one Mr. Peckinpah.

Sky Captain would've been helped by a Rick Rubin -like man behind the scenes, giving harsh directional advice and outsider feedback. Now it seems to think it's soaring, but only until someone turns off the wind machine.

The main character is Johnny Blaze, who has made a deal with Satan himself to become Ghost Rider, an indestructible body of bone and hellfire. Doesn't seem like this man has anything that can stand in his way, now does it?

And so it is. Ghost Rider picks his enemies apart with such ease that it's almost laughable. The only limitation to his powers seems to be that he can not scorch each and everyone of his opponents immediately, so some shouting and waving of the flaming bike chain must be involved (cue constant cgi).

The lack of real obstacles, outside the obvious time and space, of course, leads to another deficit, and that's a lack of excitement in this film. At no point is Ghost Rider's success under any credible threat. Maybe he might eventually get bored with all the fire being summoned and sinners being scorched that he'll just say "to hell with all this" and quits? I know I was close to that point with this film.

As the filmmakers realized that demonic possessions creating violence is not enough of an excuse to make a movie, they decided that demonic possession may also create drama. I completely understand that being possessed by something originating from the depths of hell can be a real drag and may drive a man in to deep depression, yet it's a bit hard for the average viewer to relate with the internal struggles of a stunt biker who keeps turning into a fiery and inextinguishable spirit of vengeance to fight Satan.

This film is just flashing images and loud sounds. Beyond that there's only void.

Avoid.

Giving a bad review to a SyFy movie is not really a challenge. It's so blatantly obvious thing to do that one has to think twice if it is even worth the time to type the bashing these films more often than not deserve. I'm beginning to feel like this is SyFy's strategy: keep churning out junk under the guise of light entertainment, because there are enough people that kinda enjoy passing their time watching these films and then there are those, like myself, who end up watching these in hopes something has changed.

Nothing has changed here. The images and the characters both are flat, the CGI is sub-par, and the script would again benefit from proofreading. Not that I don't trust the writers' English skills, but maybe a few more brains in the works would help in creating more passable builds of suspense, more pronounced motivations for characters etc. You know, a bit more oomph than tornadoes that are of alien origin coupled with the stock characters one can expect in such circumstances.

I've seen worse acting, and I've spent my time more foolishly, but to say that seeing a certain film is NOT the stupidest thing one can do is not really a compliment, now is it?

Yes, Disco Godfather is awful. Movie-wise, it has zero redeeming qualities, although roller-skate disco-dancing does come close. What it has is a plethora of hilarious mistakes, jumbled jive-dialogue, a lack of suspense where such is indicated, a preachy message, and many other little gems that will stick with the viewer for long time.

Everything starts with the title of the film. It's hard to think a movie named (Avenging) Disco Godfather is something else than so-bad-it's- good. There is, indeed, plenty of disco. For the uninitiated it might be too high of a dose for a first time. What I mean is that Thank God It's Friday is a lightweight compared to this, and that film was a record company brochure in film format. And yes, there is much Godfather. When he is not busy spinning some hot tracks to all the funky people at the club and making them offers they can not refuse ("put your weight on it!"), he fights drugs in both word and deed.

Alas, all this fun does not equal movie glory. Rudy Ray Moore rummages through the film like he's on a bad trip. Which must be how he felt, because this film has approximately 10-15 minutes of content, depending on who's counting, and the rest is utter padding. It's just not going anywhere, and the stalling that is the status quo is quite uninteresting beyond the giggles.

If you feel like snorting some of this disco jive and laughing hysterically whenever you remember it, Disco Godfather just might be your drug of choice. For those looking for more than a short fix better steer clear.

All aspiring film-makers should watch this. And those producing films for SyFy or Asylum should also take note.

First and foremost, we need characters. Characters that have each their own voice and emotions, all growing from their personal past. This makes the viewer care about what happens to them, root for them, and believe in them. It also takes a bit of the storytelling burden off the cinematography, as these characters can support the story in their part.

Secondly, a compelling story should be written. Compelling does not necessarily equal complex. A story should have events pan out in an order that presents at least some kind of logic and thought behind it. Twists and turns are okay, but they don't have to be gimmicks. This doesn't mean resorting to worn clichés, but have these engaging characters something to do. Something, that has some weight to it, so that the viewer stays focused for the length of the movie.

And third, add a bit of vision. A little quirk here and there brings the humanity of the characters, the story, and those making the film apparent, and creates the valuable bond between the finished movie and its' audience.

As we can see, none of these elements require much of a budget. So having a small budget should not be a constraint per se, but rather a source of ingenuity. Monty Python and the Holy Grail is one excellent example, Attack the Block is another.

It is clear that they did not have the money for a plethora of awesome locations, top-notch CGI, or brand-name anything. But what they managed to do with what they had was fun and entertaining and well worth a re- watch: The lack of shooting locations was masked with a brilliant and logical reason for limited room; lack of awe-inspiring special effects was masked with more traditional skills, ie. use of light and sound, and going story first (everyone knows how annoying is the modern over-focus on CGI over human connection, even when the effects are great); and I have no reason to believe they were looking for cheap actors, but people with desire to go out and do their best and have some fun while at it.

This film is fresh and entertaining, and as stated in the beginning, a great lesson in how to make something great out of nothing much.

A film with Abraham Lincoln, the 16th president of the United States, the guy with the iconic beard and a very tall top hat, hunting vampires? Sounds like fun!

Unfortunately, this film takes itself way too seriously, which is kinda baffling considering the title and the synopsis. It's not all garbage, but with light-hearted action and the thrill of supernatural violence written all over the premise, Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter proves to be a major let-down.

Maybe a simpler story would've helped? Why have so many pieces in it, when all people come to see here is what has been promised even before the film started: Mr. President kicking some fang-toothed butt amidst the internal turmoil of 19th century USA. Considering that being the main attraction here, the tone is also all wrong. Why so serious? If a point is being made here, it's really being lost in all the blood and the ax-wielding.

Admittedly this film does have some cool shots and some nicely inventive action. But in the end, a neater package and a lighter approach would've been the key to success. Now it's bouncing off the walls and running and bumping into household objects like a 3-year-old on a sugar high.

If they ever decide to make Teddy Roosevelt: Zombie Hunter or George Washington: Alien Hunter I hope they take note of all this and treat us to some quality leave-your-brain-at-the-cloakroom fun this film promised but failed to properly deliver.

This movie was hyped to me as a deep, fresh and interesting indie take on the "now stale" shark movie, with realistic portrayal of the aforementioned marine predators. I ended up watching the movie on DVD, and in the end I felt like I'd been lied to and made the butt of some bad practical joke.

This film is tedious. It takes it time, and not in a good way. The lack of acting skill is quite apparent, and at times it feels like they're trying to pad out the film with extra shots due to material not being enough for a feature length film. Does this explain the cringe-inducing sex scene that kicks off the film? One might say that it was all downhill since the humping ended, but I beg to differ: it was scraping the bottom all the way.

There have been two movies during which I have cooked myself something while the film kept playing on: Ben Hur and Open Water. Ben Hur was a good movie, but oh-so-long. Open Water is only 79 minutes, but to be honest, I have yet to see such a concentration of boring and stretched- out minutes anywhere else.

Avoid.

Laughing at someone is an easy way to make comedy. It's the way school bullies operate. Laughing at an unwilling comedy vehicle also gives to ones doing the laughing a sense of superiority, tickling the satisfaction centers in our brain.

This is not the way Ghost Busters work. They had every possibility to ridicule various groups of humans, but luckily decided not to. The humor here is benign, well written, and constant. The humanity of all characters present is both endearing and an endless supply of laughter.

But what makes Ghost Busters a classic is the fact it doesn't stop here. The story is exciting, with a real sense of adventure. Still, not missing a beat, it never goes overboard, helping audience to laugh whenever laughs are provided.

This movie is comedy gold, and a must for everyone with even a mild love for movies and entertainment. Best watched with a pack of marshmallows.

Oh dear.

This movie proved to me that it really is possible to roll one's eyes until they hurt. This movie also made my brain hurt, so it might just be residual pain flowing through the optic nerve.

This movie might be the very last moment when someone working on material from a comic book thought that comics should always be first and foremost comical. The end result here is a mess that doesn't seem to know what it wants to be.

Maybe they were going for the camp appeal of the 60's Batman? Who knows, but this certainly had none of the fun. The moments where this film attempts to be funny are easily distinguished, and the viewer usually notes this with a groan or a sigh. Yes, one-liners are an important part of such comic hero action AND an Arnold Schwarzenegger movie, but spewing them out at such machine gun rate lessens their intended punch to utter minimum. Also, making a cartoony film with such high levels of "threat of sex" does make one wonder who was this film really aimed at?

My main concern here is, however, that this film, that was to be the last of the series, is plagued by the same fault that had me groaning quite some during The Dark Knight Rises, another last of it's series. What brought both films toppling down for me was the decision to keep upping the ante to unrealistic heights, which leads to a moment in the film where we've gone so over the top that we can't even see the top we were supposed to go over; where tension is to be built in a fashion that resembles more a joyride in an amusement park - a cart rolling on it's set tracks - instead of the often surprising organic escalation of action; where such jumble of set-ups are in place that no conclusion can be truly satisfactory, resulting in either an anti-climatic thump or a slow sizzling out of energy, like helium leaking from a balloon.

If a move away from the dark style set by Tim Burton in Batman and Batman Returns was what was wanted, there were so many things that could've been done to achieve it. In the Batman & Robin the changes undertaken were considerable, but ultimately left the movie and its' characters hollow. The only thing I felt watching this unfold was that maybe those responsible for this film didn't really care about the end result, but about all the details that went into making it: all the costumes, the settings, the gadgets, the quotable one-liners...

If that really was the case, I don't think it was worth leaving the audience with nothing else than pieces of glittery surface and form- fitted leather.

Being another bargain bin find, my expectations were quite low for The Toughest Man in the World. At the time, Mr. T had just fought Rocky and joined the A-Team, but had yet to tag team with Hulk Hogan. Nonetheless, all the mannerisms we've come to expect from the mohawk-sporting man of muscle are present here.

Yes, it is ludicrous. Mr. T shows his innate ability to wreak havoc whenever given the opportunity, and it's brilliant in it's corny hilariousness.

Yes, it is preachy. But it's honest about it upfront, and the message is plain yet heartfelt. Just what you'd expect from a made-for-TV movie starring Mr. T, really.

If you are looking for something with credible acting or an exciting story, you will do yourself no favors by watching this. But if Mr. T rapping the theme song himself and breaking down a few doors and walls and some unruly customers using nothing but brute force, this is a film that will stay with you and make you giggle whenever you remember another funny scene from this film. And trust me, there are plenty of such scenes.

In short: recommended for select audiences. You know who you are.

This film was certainly not what I expected it to be. Luckily, it was much more than that.

I stumbled across the title while searching for a film with Peter Dinklage, whose style I really do enjoy. Here he plays a hapless laundromat owner, who needs to find ten thousand dollars to recover his near-blind dog from a loan shark who had him taken as collateral on unpaid debts.

This is what starts a dark comedy written with pacing, style and tropes taken from old film noirs. An original idea, that does deliver the goods. Helping the success are the characters, very human with their many flaws and thus also very practical comedy vehicles.

As the film ends, the style has been enjoyable, the cheerfulness despite of all the sad smudge has been constant, and the open-minded viewer will be happy that they spent their time on this unfortunately forgotten piece of film.

One man's search for revenge in a post-apocalyptic wasteland? Couldn't they have come with something at least a bit original? The italians did it a million times over in the eighties, but apparently none of them reached the far north, so the finns apparently had to make one for themselves.

And I really wish they didn't. The film is clunky, and the finnish laconic way of expression doesn't really do it any favors. The scenery is dull, but the ends of Europe found in the north should be used to emphasize the bleakness of life in the post-apocalyptic world instead of just being a simple backdrop. In many moments I found myself forgetting the very setting of the movie, as it felt none different from what it really is in pre-apocalyptic Lapland, with all the local alcoholics with inadequately pronounced English.

The good thing is that this film is not "broken", as in it does have a structure and various levels of acting. The bad thing is... everything else, really. This film has no feel to eat, it doesn't look any good, and engages the viewer only in doing something else than watching this film best left in the bargain bin one can expect to find it.

I have to admit, this is one of the few movies I went to see because of the hype.

But now after seeing it, I have to admit, that I just don't get why this movie is so hyped. Some seem to like The Salvation because it is a big budget production AND a western from Denmark. For me such anomalous occurrences don't make it instantaneously a better viewing.

I saw the movie at a theater, which was obviously good as a smaller screen would've most likely left me bored with what I'm seeing. The acting is good. As in not embarrassing, and occasionally the actors succeed in masking the dull writing this movie is plagued with. Except Eric Cantona, who was more charismatic with the red shirt of his football team.

As noted, the script had my eyes wide as saucers more than once. Not because it was surprising - and indeed I do not feel the need to be constantly surprised - but because I was astonished that they went so by the book. If the viewer has seen a single classic western, they will know how this formulaic movie will pan out.

That's no spoiler, just a warning not to expect too much.

Unfortunately, despite everything this movie does well, it does nothing exceptional. Violence exists, but causes neither excitement nor revolt. Love on screen appears to the viewer like it appears to an autistic person, people acting out things they are supposed to do because that's what people do when they love. And as stated before, if you've seen a western movie, the only gimmick here is the highly intermittent danish language.

This movie IS like Arizona: a gritty surface, but a lot of nothing inside.

Yes, to some the summary/title of this review might seem to contradict the vote of 3 I have given this movie, but before I pushed play I was honestly expecting something much worse.

Of course this is schlock. Of course the acting is not good, to say the least. Of course you know the contents of this movie just by reading the title. But I have seen Leeches, and Megalodon, and Spice World, and The Room. I have scraped the bottom of the barrel. I have looked into the abyss of movie-making and seen it blink. And when Spring Break Shark Attack panned out to be a movie that is NOT cynical and more aware of it's budget restraints than the viewer, it received to instant plus- marks in my book. Bikinis are thankfully not the main attraction here, the script has been given a bit more than a passing thought, and the amount of attempt witnessed here is to be appreciated.

This movie is what you can expect with such a title, yet all the obvious roadside annoyances of such low-quality movies have been successfully erased. An educating view for fans of B-or-worse-movies or those who like animals eating jerks.