Change Your Image
etzool
Reviews
Spaceman (1997)
Ridiculous. Hilarious. Intentionally so!
I started this thinking it'd be about a 4, just something stupid to watch because I didn't feel like going to bed.
Well, it is stupid. It's incredibly stupid, and if it weren't painfully obvious that this is a parody and/or a comedy, I don't think I could've watched it all the way to the end.
It gets progressively funnier as you near the ending, which is non-traditional to say the least, absolutely hilarious and utterly perfect for the film. I was floored by the comedic value.
If you love science fiction and can manage not to take it too seriously, you will LOVE this movie!
The Bourne Ultimatum (2007)
Ridiculous.
I cannot believe this film has scored so highly. It's not terrible, but it's absolutely not worthy of an 8, and while I've seen a lot of really strangely rated movies here, this one's really hard to believe.
1. It's the SAME MOVIE. Have you seen the first one? It was good. The second one? Decent. This one? NOTHING NEW.
2. Did you watch the camera? Apparently the budget couldn't support TRIPODS. Even cameramen who weren't either on speed or suffering severe withdrawal were apparently nowhere to be found. There's something to be said for using the camera to affect a mood; it can't be said here, though, with a straight face.
Such an uninspired movie with such a predictable plot should be enjoyed with popcorn and plenty of salt, NOT hoisted up with the top-ranked movies on this site.
Star Trek: Voyager (1995)
Hard to watch.
I enjoyed The Next Generation (though it was a lot more fantasy than I was expecting from science fiction), and I do like Enterprise (despite its often cheesy writing); I've even liked the few Babylon 5 episodes I've seen. I enjoy the original series, and despite a few TOS-cast failures, I love the Star Trek movies (even the mediocre ones).
Unfortunately, I was unable to get through more than four episodes of Voyager. I really wanted to like it; however, the immense amounts of pseudoscience immediately grated on my nerves. Warp particles? The event horizon is an 'energy field?' I am a huge believer in suspension of disbelief -- horror, science fiction and fantasy are my favorite genres, largely for this reason -- but the other series generally skirt known physics or make an attempt to reconcile their plots with currently accepted theories. Voyager doesn't do this at all; the show employs painful leaps of 'science' and 'logic' that will leave anyone with a background in either cringing.
The acting varies from decent to very, very poor, from one scene to the next. The character dynamics change similarly, to the point where it's so inconsistent that the show just can't build tension. The show does have its moments, but they come in neither quantity nor quality.
I can't in good conscience recommend this to anyone, especially Star Trek fans.
300 (2006)
You will enjoy this much more if you ignore the hype.
Well, I just saw this, and in two words and a contraction: I'm not impressed. Unfortunately, I don't know a thing about the story this is based on, so I'm not saddled with any preconceptions there, and I'm judging this movie COMPLETELY on its own merit, which I found really lacking.
I went expecting a big ol' bloodbath with some witty quips, lots of freaks, badassery all around and no story to speak of.
What I got was a flick that tried WAY too hard for the one-liners, a story that would've been bearable if it the narration hadn't been so forced, and characters that were painfully predictable. I wouldn't even mention that, but yes, this film DID try for plot, and it tried a lot harder than I had been led to believe by other people's reviews. I wish it hadn't; I would have enjoyed it more.
The battle scenes were just vaguely amusing chaos with two notable exceptions: When they actually used the phalanx, it was cool, and when they were fighting that giant dude, that was pretty well-done. The rest of it was just dull repetition of uninteresting scenes; OK, a limb there, a limb here, lots of blood, woohoo. But wait! We can do slow motion! We can do slow motion! We can do slow motion! We can -- WE GET IT, STOP WITH THE SLOW MOTION. It works sometimes for dramatic emphasis. It was overused in this movie to the point where it actually interrupted the action, and that's all this movie had going for it to begin with.
Another thing I wasn't impressed with was the cinematography. I don't know why people are so impressed. There are a few shots where it's obvious they were going for some kind of art-film appeal... mostly, though, it's just adequate. Not bad, but certainly not great. The mood was cool; I love the whole monochromish color thing, but aside from that... there wasn't much there.
Bland choreography, hokey dialogue, uninteresting visuals... this movie just has so little going for it. It completely failed to engage me, which is actually pretty hard to do; that's a serious disappointment.
Glengarry Glen Ross (1992)
A great movie for cynics.
I've been working in and around phone rooms for several years... if you have any sales experience, you will probably enjoy this movie.
It's a cold-hearted, no-frills, no-excuses, and very accurate portrayal of an industry that shocked the hell out of me when I first got into it. This film shows you some of the darkly humorous parts of it: Representatives flat-out lying to customers to make sales, coworkers and management impersonating all sorts of company officials and high-rollers, leads being recycled ad nauseum... the list goes on.
Perhaps the funniest part is that the whole premise of this movie -- the reps' utter obsession with leads -- is, unfortunately, the one people who haven't worked in the industry aren't going to fully grasp. It really... is... that... bad.
One thing to watch for that's understated a bit is the whole idea of 'defection' from one office to another. They don't spend much time on it here, but it really does happen exactly the way it's described in the movie; I've seen it more than once.
If you enjoy a lot of interesting dialogue, if you love to watch a really well-acted play, if you know how it is to work (REALLY work) in sales, or if you've ever been pitched by an overly enthusiastic telemarketer, you'll find something in this movie to enjoy.
Ghost Rider (2007)
Painfully predictable.
Right off the bat, I have never read the comics, so I have no idea how close this was to anything that's actually canon.
Taken by itself, this movie hurts; I don't know if reading the comic would make it better or worse. It's certainly not the worst I've seen, and it did have some very funny moments.
Unfortunately, the melodrama was laid on disgustingly thick, the acting was terrible (Cage was decent, but the rest of the cast was either completely inept or having a bad year), the special effects were sub-par considering the quality most CG-based movies are attaining now, and the plot was just generally uninteresting.
The worst thing about this movie, the one that really drags it down and keeps the entertainment value low, is the complete predictability of every character and situation. Stock characters abound, and you never see anyone doing or saying anything inspired, interesting or even remotely insightful. Basically, the plot as well as the characters lack depth.
A prime example is the beginning of the climactic fight (which, by the way, you'll see coming a mile and a half away). It's painfully scripted and (even in context) pathetically unrealistic.
This is a popcorn flick -- not a good one, but a popcorn flick. Watch it for the no-talent eye candy and the amusing lines and deliveries by Cage, but do yourself a favor: Wait until it hits the dollar theatre.
Hannibal Rising (2007)
Good, but not great, and not a fitting tribute to Hannibal Lecter.
It's not bad, but without reading the book, you really don't know what's going on. There's so much internal monologue that's just completely left out -- it'd have had to be narration or something, but still. There's also a very large section of the plot that's completely cut, and at least two characters that were completely removed. So little of what made the book good was cut from the movie, which is really sad, especially since Harris wrote the screenplay; I have to assume that a LOT of the substance was left on the cutting-room floor.
The movie is way more hack-and-slash than the book. The murders are similar, but Hannibal is so much smarter and more elegant in the way he does things in the novel than he is in the film. You also get a great deal more information on his life before the war and his work at the medical school (he was paying his way through by making anatomy sketches, which is very much glossed over, and ties in to parts of the story that were left out).
It's not bad, and there are some decent moments (coupled with some really out-of-character ones, which grate on the nerves). Overall, I was disappointed. Not worth the ridiculous price of a ticket -- rent this one.
If you liked it... or if you like Hannibal at all... do yourself a favor and read the book.
Cool World (1992)
Bakshi is... not for everyone.
I saw this a very long time ago, and probably remembered it fondly because of the eye candy I'm sure I enjoyed.
After watching Wizards (a very strange movie... VERY strange, but worth the time to watch), I thought it'd be interesting to see this one again; for some reason I remembered it being more... normal, I suppose, or at least closer to something that would be considered mainstream.
I obviously did not remember it correctly. From cartoon cars that turn into real cars that turn into 2-dimensional cutouts to the utter nonsense that often occupies the foreground (and even entire scenes), this movie goes beyond "this is the Cool World, and it's different/interesting/fun" to "this is chaos, and we're going to apply strange, arbitrary, unexplained rules to it later on... for now just watch Holli jiggle." Wizards was something you could watch as a cinematic oddity. This movie doesn't go that far; it stops before it gains any redeeming quality that you won't find in Who Framed Roger Rabbit, which would be a far better choice if you're interested in the mixture of animation and live action.
Cool World is not cohesive enough to be intriguing, it's not innovative enough to stand out in its genre, it's not put together well enough to be admired on technical merit, and it's not entertaining enough to make a good popcorn flick. Skip this one.
Freddy vs. Jason (2003)
A great flick -- just don't go into it expecting horror.
While the Friday the 13th movies mostly tried to be suspenseful, true horror movies (their success or failure isn't really relevant), the Nightmare on Elm Street series has long been more focused on fun, creative entertainment with a few cheap scares to add to the amusement.
Freddy vs. Jason fits solidly in the second camp. For fans of the irreverent style, horrifying puns, witty quips and generally light-hearted 'horror' common in Craven films, this one will feel familiar.
However, if you're more in the Jason camp and want tension, an abundance dark settings and a guy running around telling everyone how doomed they are (I love that guy), you should go into this movie with an open mind -- it's probably not what you're expecting.
Both fandoms, though, should be able to enjoy the gore in this film. While you might miss some of the more creative kills typical of both series, you'll certainly get your quota of gushing blood and severed limbs.
While I'd recommend this to anyone who likes messy humor, I'd say Freddy fans would call it a solid 9, while Jason followers might see it a bit lower, as it twists his character a bit to suit the film.
Phantasm (1979)
Overrated, unfortunately.
The story itself is interesting -- the characters are pretty likable, and there are enough fantastic elements that it's a pretty surreal experience.
However, the execution left me wondering who decided to take what would have been the most interesting parts of the film and either leave them out of the script or drop them on the cutting room floor.
This movie could have been excellent -- however, major plot points are explained very poorly (when they're explained at all), apparently in favor of a few more scenes of "ahhh, midgets, get my shotgun!" Everything that DID make the movie could certainly have stayed, but two more hours of actual character development would have clinched this as one of my favorite movies.
I wanted to enjoy this movie; unfortunately, I can't find enough redeeming value here to watch it again, let alone recommend it to others.
Harvey (1950)
Smile, laugh, think.
I tried to give this a 9, but couldn't. A lot of movies are very good; this one is, but it also leaves you feeling very good.
My favorite line, which I think wraps up the theme concisely, was (shortened, and from IMDb's quote reference): "Years ago my mother used to say to me[...] 'In this world, Elwood, you must be oh so smart or oh so pleasant.' Well, for years I was smart. I recommend pleasant." In the context of the movie, it's quite honestly the only line in any movie that's every really turned me introspective (sans liquor).
There's a lot to say, but as has been pointed out, it's not a terribly deep film -- it's best just to watch it for yourself. Good, innocent fun from a time when movies could be fun and innocent.
Wizards (1977)
Overrated and unimpressive.
I have enjoyed some of Bakshi's films (without knowing they were his), but did not realize that until after I watched Wizards and looked into it. This seems to be a chemically-induced mistake in an otherwise very decent career.
The animation is twitchy, uneven, and generally not very good quality. The still scenes are very nice -- it's unfortunate that the artistic styles are so drastically different; the animation could have taken MANY stylistic pointers from the stills.
The psychedelic rotoscoping, which so many people seem to love, is distracting, out of place and blends together with the propaganda film (which was not modified with sloppy horns or ridiculous colors) to the point where it's completely unclear whether King Arthur is riding out with the Luftwaffe for air cover or whether the camera is just broken. Think Pink Elephants on Parade meets Saving Private Ryan. These scenes are reused and drag on to the point where you will laugh, roll your eyes and check your watch, in that order, repeatedly.
The Nazi angle does add some spice to the film, which otherwise suffers from a lack of character development, a drunken pace, horrible anticlimax and hypocrisy at every turn.
The female narrator is definitely high. It's very annoying. There was obviously a lot of pot and activism involved in the writing of her lines, though, so it works out (prepare to roll your eyes again). Also, the good and bad in this movie are so polarized into beautiful vs. ugly that it's hard to watch.
- MAJOR SPOILERS FOLLOW
Technology has been outlawed in the 'good' parts of the world. The 'good guy' uses a telescope, summons a jukebox, and kills his brother by producing a GUN from his sleeve and putting a bullet through his heart.
- END SPOILERS
I'm not completely sorry I watched this movie, but I will not see it again, and I do not recommend it to anyone -- except, perhaps, the morbidly curious.
Superman Returns (2006)
Serious let-down.
I will say that this is not a terrible movie. It is, however, mediocre at best... poor writing, inconsistent plot elements, acting that's no better than fair and casting that's also not excellent.
As for the spoiler... well, there's one that sticks out. It's the huge, massive, contrived, idiotic plot point that should not have happened and completely ruined this movie for me. Superman lifts a CONTINENT laced heavily with KRYPTONITE, flies it out of Earth's gravitational field and throws it out of our solar system.
Continent... made... of... Kryptonite. Let that sink in. Luthor's thugs were smacking him around like a little girl while he was standing on this thing, but hey, it's OK -- just shoot him up above the clouds for about five seconds of tanning and suddenly he can tunnel his way under all this stuff (great homage to The Core, might have been intentional, might not -- still funny), pick the whole freaking thing up, lift it several miles and throw it hard enough to escape our gravitational field.
Idiocy. Pure idiocy.
Then we have the lovely little affair between Superman and Lois Lane. Apparently they weren't just reporter-and-hero before; apparently they were SLEEPING TOGETHER. "It was just the title of an interview," she lies to poor Cyclops, who then saves her studly hunk when he manages to get himself in trouble. Hooray for unexplained backstory! Then we have the horrifyingly, painfully, disgustingly obvious, predictable piano scene. It was hilarious right up until the power came back on... then it got stupid. Wow, it's now completely, 100% obvious who the father is, even though we barely had any reason to wonder about that one until this point... but hey, let's treat it like some huge mystery for the rest of the film anyway.
There were parts of this film I liked. Not enough to warrant watching it again any time soon, though. I would not recommend seeing it in the theatre.
Versus (2000)
Good story, weak characters, bad direction, strange editing. Not much fun.
People hyped the heck out of this movie, but I can't attribute my disappointment to that. I've seen a lot of movies that weren't as good as the hype but still ended up being enjoyable... Versus does not fit that bill.
This is not a good movie. It has a very interesting plot, and would definitely make a good anime... but there is just so much... well, stupidity. This story could have been told just as well (and probably would've been a LOT more enjoyable) in, literally, half the time. The characters are more like caricatures than people -- which would be OK if it weren't taken so far as to get in the way of the movie. I just couldn't take any of them seriously. I guess it would be enjoyable if you were, I don't know, really into gore and really, really high, but that's about it. I don't mind gore... but if you're not a BIG fan of it, portions of this movie will definitely make you roll your eyes.
While the story is cool (and I did like the ending), there is a whole lot of empty space where there's basically nothing but zombies running around and getting blown to pieces. I'm generally a fan of zombie movies, but give me a break; we don't even get the typical "shoot them in the head until they fall down." They take a random number of bullets or dismemberment and just randomly die with no rhyme or reason.
Oh, and these zombies use swords. And guns. And kung freaking fu. I guess this would be cool if anything else in this movie had ANY kind of cohesion, but it doesn't, so this feels like just another "well, we felt like it, so they can do it" bit.
There are... I guess you would call them protagonists... a couple of government agents who should be at least a relatively major plot point. They get... ten? Fifteen minutes of air time? I can't stress how completely ridiculous the characters are. There are three that actually have substance... kind of... and only because they are THE main characters (you won't know who they are until half way through the movie, which makes it slightly more bearable). Everyone else is crazy. Completely insane. That is not an exaggeration. It's fun at first, but once you realize that there really are only three important characters in this film, it gets very boring and very repetitive.
The camera work starts off very, very badly. I was gratified when the director decided to stop using a hand-held camcorder. There might have been some kind of significance to this, but I was too busy trying to be interested to get that far into it.
There's just not much reason to watch this. There's some good fighting, but so much of it is filmed REALLY badly that there are only one or two fights that are enjoyable. The hand-to-hand fights are definitely a plus, and are one of the only reasons this didn't get a 1 from me.
I hated to hate this movie. I love zombie flicks, martial arts, gunfights, mythology of all sorts, horror movies, subtitles and Japanese chicks. This movie tried, and could have been/had all of the above, but failed dismally on all fronts.
3.5/10... rounded down for IMDb, because this doesn't have the entertainment value for a 4.
The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift (2006)
Great entertainment! A great step up for the series.
This movie RULES.
I honestly don't understand the people who hated it. Yes, there is a good deal of very poor acting. Yes, the story is pretty stupid. Yes, everything about this movie is contrived... but honestly, are any of these surprising? Did we not expect this? The fact is, this movie stands head and shoulders above 2 Fast, 2 Furious. I do not believe that is an opinion. The acting is better, the story is better, the characters are more believable, the production value is FAR better... none of these are stellar by any means, but what you end up with is solid entertainment. As long as you know what you're looking at, you will laugh, whether they meant you to or not.
I'm not sure if I enjoyed it more than the first F&F, but it's definitely a fun movie. Don't go looking for something believable, and don't expect a deep, involving story -- just go to be entertained, and I can almost guarantee you'll at least get a good laugh.
There are definitely negatives, though. The acting is not good. Not awful, but not good. The female lead looks like Michael Jackson. I mean dog ugly. The plot is very simple, and not exactly involving.
The positives, obviously, are the details. The races are certainly fun to watch; a LOT of the really stupid things (like, well, all the dialogue) can be really entertaining as long as you're not taking them seriously. There's a lot of idiocy that car people will catch and laugh at -- my knowledge of auto mechanics is mediocre, but I still got some great laughs out of this film. E-brake drifting in RWD cars... if you get it, you'll enjoy it.
Overall... watch this movie to be entertained. I'm not disappointed; I'm glad I saw it on the big screen, and once it's out on DVD, I will definitely be obtaining a copy.
7.5/10
Kill Bill: Vol. 2 (2004)
Very poor follow-up.
As far as the general storyline, this film is OK, nothing surprising, and certainly not a disappointment.
However, after the very good editing that made volume 1's swordplay enjoyable and relatively convincing, the martial arts scenes in this movie are difficult to watch.
Yes, this is obviously in large part a spoof on martial arts movies. Yes, it takes some of the stock characters from such films and makes some great plays on them, and yes, it integrates this well into the story (even if it is amazingly cheesy).
However, to watch Uma attempt to look proficient in hand-to-hand fighting is truly an unpleasant thing, and takes away significantly from the movie. I didn't realize until seeing this movie how well-edited vol. 1 was -- watch it again. You won't notice how incredibly awkward she is, because the cuts are so good that all you see is quick action, not her swinging that katana. In vol. 2, you see all of that in-between, and it turns out it's a VERY good thing we missed it in 1.
Were it not for that, this could have been an acceptable conclusion. As it is, if you have any kind of background in martial arts -- or even martial arts movies -- you will probably find this film very hard to take seriously, even as a parody.
Extremely overrated. Watch at your own risk; you may end up with an aversion to the first one as well, as I did, which is very unfortunate.
The Langoliers (1995)
Good for younger King fans.
The only reason I can give this a three instead of something lower is that the plot is indeed King -- it doesn't stray far from his work. The characters are basically intact, as is the plot itself, so if you can look past everything else you'll get a fun "what if" out of it.
The problem, of course, is that 'everything else.' I say this is decent fare for younger fans because I enjoyed it in my early teens, but upon re-watching in my mid-20's, I have a hard time getting past the acting, the dialog and the computer animation sequences. Also, the ending, which I won't give away, dramatically cheapens the hours you'll spend waiting for it.
The acting, first off, is perhaps the biggest problem this movie has. The blind girl and the schoolteacher are the worst; you'll laugh at the former for basically the entire movie, but in the last half hour or so, the latter will have you cringing. Overacting doesn't quite cover the ham-fisted delivery from those two. The young violinist is also quite bad, but doesn't really have the severe dips into horrifying melodrama that the ladies suffer from.
Stockwell's character is a good way to tie the acting problems in with the writing failures, because they're definitely related at many points. I don't think I'd call his performance poor, given the script he had to work with -- his character might have been meant for satirical comic relief, but it's hard to say whether that was the case or whether it was just more ugly copy. The teacher's conversation with the blind girl regarding the sound of her shoes on the tarmac is a prime example... "They sound weak... almost as though they have no strength." Monkies may not put out Shakespeare, but I'd bet they could do better than this.
The CG is pretty bad, but it's not something that's really going to take away from the movie unless it's a major pet peeve for you personally. The shots of the plane in flight are pretty comical; the worst of it is the langoliers themselves, which are modeled with all the skill and subtlety of a construction worker playing the xylophone with a wrecking ball.
That said, there ARE good things about this movie. The characters themselves, beyond the actors' flaws, are pretty decent; Toomey will grate on your nerves, but in such a way as to make you really understand his character. I can't say I felt any sympathy for him, though, which is another failure. The other characters aren't bad either; for such a long movie, though, they certainly could've been a bit more developed.
The ending -- that is, the very last shot and freeze -- are ridiculous, inappropriate and... well, stupid, given the number of people who die and the overall tone of the rest of the movie. You will feel cheated.
Overall: Ham-fisted dialog, painful delivery and a general feeling of disappointment. Your mileage may vary, but I wouldn't recommend it to anyone over 15.
Silent Running (1972)
Good premise, bad movie.
Now, I am not someone who wandered out of his genre and happened to see this movie by accident. I love science fiction -- old, new, I think most of it has something to offer.
This film would be the exception. Some films are fun because they're cheesy (Event Horizon), and some are great because they're thought-provoking (The Day the Earth Stood Still). Silent Running is an obnoxious portrayal of a hippie who should never have been allowed on a space ship to begin with.
The premise here has a lot of promise; had the characters been more believable or the film itself less... well, there are a lot of statements that fit here. Politically skewed, weakly written, off-balance, utterly implausible (even for a sci-fi flick)... the list goes on.
I had heard of this movie as some kind of milestone for science fiction. It is not, and should not be considered such; it's hard to even take this movie seriously, as it is obviously meant to be. It also fails as a campy popcorn flick, which it was definitely NOT meant to be, because the message is so overbearing that most of it is just painful to watch, regardless of whether you agree with it.
I absolutely do not recommend this movie; it has no redeeming value -- not for ecologists, not for pacifists, not for anyone short of Greenpeace supporters on downers. Avoid this, for your own sake.
Silent Hill (2006)
Disappointing, but not a terrible movie.
I usually try to avoid getting drawn in by trailer hype, but I found it hard with this movie -- the trailers made it look like they really, actually had translated the game into a movie very well.
This was, overall, not the case. The movie does a few things well, but retaining the most important aspect of the game -- its tension -- simply is not one of them.
Silent Hill itself is very well-done. The environments, with few exceptions, were very well-rendered; this is the area that really shines as far as bringing the game to the screen. With the exception of a VERY poorly-rendered intro shot (panning around the main character), the outdoor 'day' scenes are very effective. The interiors are also very reminiscent of the games.
Unfortunately, Silent Hill suffers from several problems which keep it from being a very good film.
One is the acting. While it's not bad overall, there are a couple surprisingly poor, ham-fisted performances, and not from the actors you'd think. This might be the fault of bad direction, but either way, it's there and it takes away from the movie.
Another is character development. You just don't get much of it beyond "this is what's happening and this is who it's happening to." All good stories are character-driven, and while this one is, it does not give you much at all to flesh them out. You will get about five solid minutes of backstory for the most important character in the movie... and you will get it right at the end. Not impressive, not effective.
A minor point, and one that will probably only jump out at people who have experienced the games, is the minimization and poor presentation of pyramid head. You see very little of him, and at no point is he scary.
Which leads to this movie's biggest problem. There is no tension here. It does not grab you the way the games did -- it probably will not grab you at all. There are "woah, that's strange" and "wow, that was shocking" moments (not many, but they are there), but it absolutely does not deliver on the games' main selling points -- the suspense, the tension that came from sitting in a dark room with the volume up, running around in the dark, knowing there's something out there that probably doesn't like you.a A movie theatre is a dark place... the volume is always maxed... and it's been years since I even saw the games. Even with these things going for it, though, Silent Hill the movie fails to deliver any sort of suspense.
If you loved the games, you might not enjoy this movie. If you haven't played them, you have a better chance of having fun with this one.
Ultraviolet (2006)
I gave this a -1. 1 is too high.
Ultraviolet (which I will not italicize, as that would simply lend it credibility) fails to entertain because it lacks environment, plot, dialogue, character, music, pace, climax, production value and acting.
To say that the film lacks environment is an oversimplification. The film has environment; the problem is, there's no explanation of it. There's strange architecture, and there might be some kind of interesting dynamic between the various groups illustrated throughout the film. However, none of these things are explained, explicitly or implicitly, enough to make them actual, solid story elements.
Along with environment goes the dreadful inclusion of such random and distressing elements as 'gravity levellers,' dimensional something-or-other technology (which is nothing more than an excuse to allow Milla to carry lots of guns, which she never uses at the right times), and that laughable gun-dance misery that turned Equlibrium into a poor excuse for a martial arts movie. Not only are these absolutely not necessary to the story, they require a suspension of disbelief which the actual plot simply does not call for.
There is no plot. Well, there might kind of be something like an ongoing story, as it'd be nearly impossible to make a movie with no plot unless you were trying. The movie starts to actually explain why the main character is the main character... but abandons it in favor of something that just doesn't add anything to the story or make any sense. The story happens twice. She shoots a lot of people, gets a package, loses it, kills a lot more people, gets it back again, movie ends. There's really not much more to it than that. Oh, this occurs on a background of a virus which apparently turns people into vampires who can walk during the day, don't drink blood and... well, they're people with long teeth that apparently don't live very long, and that's it. There is no explanation for any of this. It's hard to talk about the plot without getting upset.
This film lacks character interaction. There are four important characters. Two of them have about five lines apiece, one is the villain (You should've taken the money, Toombs), and one is Milla, who proves here that, given any license with her lines, she is utterly incapable of emulating actual human emotion. This is, admittedly, in large part a problem with the writing; the lines are stiff, forced, random, insubstantial and, very often, completely out of left field. At no time does the dialogue (or monologue; god how I wish I could just forget Milla's narratives) add enough to warrant watching this film without earplugs.
Music... this will be brief. At only one point did the music in this film assert itself, and that was to say "Hey, listen to this, it's loud and bassy, but isn't coming from the environment -- it's music!" This was the low point; unfortunately, there were no high points.
I sat through about five mediocre "hm, this might be the beginning of a story" false starts and three "is it ending?!" moments. The fact that I honestly could not tell whether it was ending at the first two (the third, thankfully, did not disappoint) very nearly had me in tears at the prospect of more. This movie meanders -- not so much in story as in quality, since the story never really happens -- between mediocrity and pitiful inadequacy. It can't figure out where it wants to be, and never really tries hard enough to look convincing.
The lack of climax ties in nicely with the poor pace. Part of the reason it's impossible to tell if the movie is ending or not at several points is that you're never really given anything that could be called a high point or a pivotal story moment. It does become obvious about five minutes from the end that you are, indeed, near the end; however, before that point, you are wandering in the dark, just as the monkeys who wrote this must have been while searching for their typewriters. The lights obviously never came on, and they stopped far, far short of Shakespeare.
The biggest complaint I'd heard before seeing this movie was about the poor CG. Yes, it was bad, but there is so, so much more to complain about that I seriously wonder how people could even look past it to see the amateurish graphics work and single it out as the movie's greatest flaw. It's not good. Ten years ago, it would have been... decent. There's just not much to say about it. Yes, it detracts from the film, but that makes it one snowflake in a raging blizzard.
In Resident Evil and Fifth Element, Milla was not bad. She was not a shining light of talent, a beacon of acting magnificence, but she was convincing enough that her presence did not detract from those films. Either this is her evil twin sister usurping her fame, or Milla truly is just a terrible actress who had a few good films and some astonishingly great acting coaches (who must now be deceased, possibly by their own hands). While this movie could not possibly have been excellent, it could have been less terrible if Milla had tried a little harder to sound a bit more sincere and a little less... forced, childish, ridiculous, all of these work. Her unbelievably poor performance is probably the biggest reason this is such an undeniably terrible movie.
I cannot stress enough how poor this movie is. I felt bad the first time I laughed at the screen... however, the majority of the theatre was laughing along half way through the movie (during the 'serious' scenes, mostly), and I just could not make myself stop. Most of my fellow victims clapped when it ended; they were not applauding its quality.