Change Your Image
scyphe
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
The Matrix Resurrections (2021)
How to kill off a franchise
This sequel feels so amateurish and silly that I can't help but suspect that the Wachowskis got so sick of being nagged into making a new cash cow trilogy that they decided that Lana would make the movie that ended the franchise for good. This is it. I feel sorry for the main actors having to act like that, speak those lines and be a part of this debacle.
I didn't really expect much from Matrix 4 since the original trilogy had told the entire story. All the "meta" stuff in M4 was so cringeworthy that I've got to spend quite some time to remember something that was as cringeworthy as this movie.
This is simply a very bad movie, badly written/scripted and badly thought out. There's not much else to say really. Matrix is dead... offline.
Foundation (2021)
If you expected Isaac Asimov's Foundation, think again!
If you haven't read the books there's a chance you'll be confused, esp. During the first 2-3 episodes with time skips and a serious lack of exposition. If you are attracted to glossy sci-fi CGI, great sets etc. You probably find this show interesting. If you've read the books you've probably realized that this show is veeeery losely "based on" Asimov's classic trilogy. There are very few resemblances between the story, setting and characters in the show and their counterparts in the books.
I'm a huge fan of Isaac Asimov's fictional work (and a few non-fictional books as well) and the first episode started out somewhat promising. Jared Harris cast as Hari Seldon is a perfect match. After that it all goes downhill. The characters sharing the name with the characters in the book are mostly invented from scratch except for the basic premise.
Every episode that was released was worse than the one before. It's almost as if David S. Goyer never read the books beyond the synopsis on the back cover. I realise that to adapt something so complex and epic as the Foundation trilogy they had to trim it down and use artistic license to turn it into a show. The problem is that Goyer and the other writers threw away most of Asimov's writings and replaced them with their own inventions.
When I first heard that Goyer was working on it as writer, executive producer and showrunner I felt quite worried. My worries proved to be spot on. There's very little of Goyer's work that I've enjoyed. To me he's a mediocre writer that (in case of adapting an existing book or comic) tend to only pick up the main premise and ignore the bigger and lesser details that made the source material so special.
I'm still waiting for a single good adaptation of Asimov's work.
It's a disappointed 4/10 from me.
EDIT: I changed the score from 3 to 4 after watching all the episodes. It had some moments and scenes that were interesting enough to warrant another star.
Midnight Mass (2021)
A slow and meandering show with pacing issues
This one is a slow burner, a bit too slow in many parts. The story itself is good enough but the writing and pacing isn't even close to the amazing Hill House or the pretty good Bly Manor (which I found very slow in the beginning as well but it grew on me, as did the characters although it was written in the typical Victorian drama format which Henry James was known for).
In this one I don't really feel particularly invested in any of the characters including the main character/protagonist. But I do enjoy it, just not nearly as much as the aforementioned shows. If ("if", which is usually pointless after the fact but it sums up my above criticism) the writing had been much tighter and better paced without the loooong monologues, instead tightening them up and removing the superfluous chatter it could've been a great show instead of the slow meandering show we got.
Dracula Untold (2014)
The 1/10 reviews/scores shouldn't be taken seriously
The main complaint I see in all the hate-reviews is that it's not historically correct or that it doesn't follow Bram Stokers book closely. Bram Stokers book Dracula isn't historically correct (there are no vampires), it's simply gothic horror fiction based on various folktales and historical characters and events. Even the 1992 movie "Bram Stokers Dracula" directed by Francis Ford Coppola doesn't follow the book by the letter, yet it won a ton of awards and reaped great respect and a huge following.
Dracula Untold is an origin story where we follow Vlad III Dracul (aka Vlad III Tepes) at the end of the 15th century as his Wallachian kingdom (including the people and his family) are threatened with conquest/annihilation by the Turkish Ottoman invasion of Europe. We follow Vlad as he tries to defend his family and his kingdom only to find himself at the edge of destruction. In a desperate move he remember the tale as well as almost being killed by a powerful being and seeks out this creature of the night to ask for the power he needs to protect his kingdom against Mehmed II and the Ottoman army. The help/power he gets from this creature comes at a price that we are all familiar with.
It's a fantasy movie that is based partly on Dracula as well as some historical events without attempting to turn it into a historically correct period movie. It's about the struggles and the destiny of a fictional Vlad III Tepes/Dracula.
It's a great popcorn flick with good acting, great scenery and an interesting story, all presented with good visuals. I definitely recommend it.
Alien: Covenant (2017)
Flawed due to Fox compromise and script writer John Logan
Ridley Scott already had the design for Prometheus 2 which would follow Elisabeth and David to the Engineers' home planet. Fox wasn't impressed with the box office figures of Prometheus and wanted an Alien movie with xenomorphs.
We're stuck with a compromise due to the scriptwriter John Logan:
"The initial screenplay was written by Dante Harper, but an extensive rewrite was performed by screenwriter John Logan. Logan had previously worked with Scott on Gladiator. For Logan, the main concept was to combine the horror elements of Alien with the philosophical elements of Prometheus. He said, "With Alien: Covenant, I just really wanted to write something that had the feel of the original Alien, because seeing that movie was one of the great events of my youth. It was so overpowering in terms of what it communicated to me and its implications, that when I started talking to Ridley about what became Alien: Covenant, I said, 'You know, that was a hell of a scary movie.' I wanted to write a horror movie because the Grand Guignol elements of Alien are so profound. We tried to recapture that with Alien: Covenant, while also trying to pay homage to the deeper implications of Prometheus. In terms of tone, pace, and how we chose to play this particular symphony, we wanted to create a really frightening movie."
Unfortunately he failed to reach the level of the first three Alien movies as well as Prometheus (under-appreciated) due to some rather stupid writing. When you land on an alien planet with it's own ecosystem and evolution you do NOT just sit down in a forest and mess about as if you're in your backyard.
I knew before I entered the cinema that Scott had been forced to compromise his vision with Fox bringing in a new scriptwriter to replace Prometheus 2 with a low-grade Alien-prequel. The attempt to connect Prometheus with Alien(s) was too obvious. It's like Prometheus 2 was already made and they just took scenes from the end of Prometheus 2 and copied it to Alien: Covenant.
All in all it was a disappointment but still watchable and somewhat entertaining. I'm giving it 5/10 due to all the flaws, the rewrite, the compromise, some silly scenes and weak writing, esp. the weird personality-change of the character David. Still, it's a must-see for fans of the Alien franchise. You will get a few glimpses from what would have been Prometheus 2 in the movie and I recommend watching the official "prologue" which is available here on IMDb as well as YouTube etc.
Doctor Strange (2016)
Nearly everything I hoped it would be.
I read plenty of various Marvel magazines in the 90'ies featuring Doctor Strange. It's the reason I gave this movie a 9/10. Benedict Cumberbatch is an excellent Doctor Strange in this origin story and is close to nailing the character, something we're not always blessed with in comic-based movies.
The added humour actually improved the movie. Amazing CGI (albeit a little too much at times), excellent cast, great settings... All make up for a nice introduction to a somewhat forgotten Marvel character.
There are some minor issues but all in all it was a very enjoyable movie, one of the better coming from the Marvel Universe.
Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency (2016)
Is this a good representation of Dirk Gently?
No. It's not.
Samuel Barnett is so far removed from the character I loved in the books. I didn't expect this show to be true to the books, I just never expected the writers to redesign the main character so much that there's little to nothing I can recognize. This is a show breaker as far as I am concerned.
The wonderful and wacky humour of Douglas Adams is almost completely missing. The one thing they got somewhat right is the odd and confusing story line/holistic mystery. It's just not particularly funny.
I will give kudos to Elijah Wood for giving a good performance as a bewildered and confused character who just happen to become part of the holistic twister.
As for the rest? Meh... It may be holistic but there's no Dirk in it.
UPDATE:
I've now seen episode 6.
I still stand by my original review.. BUT, the writing has improved and the central characters actually manage to make the show somewhat watchable. Their characters actually fill up and cover the false and sad Dirk-character.
I increased my score to a 5 (from a 4). The show has become better than the first ~2-3 episodes. Who (no pun intended) knows, perhaps the writing and character design of Dirk will become better.
UPDATE 2:
Reflecting on this show years after I watched it I changed my score to 8/10 for the following reason(s):
After watching both seasons I have to change my score once again. The second season was really good and I also left the original books, characters and storylines behind and thoroughly enjoyed this show. I do understand that movies and tv-series can rarely reflect the books the makers use as source material and various choices have to be made in order for it to work as a visual story. Sometimes it works, other times the result is horrendous.
In this case it actually works. During the first half of season 1 I was taken aback due to how extremely different the show was compared to the books that I loved so much, a common issue when you've already built the world from the books in your head using your imagination. Seeing a version of it that is completely different compared to what was created by that imagination is often jarring. If the show is good enough and you can get past the fact that it's "inspired" by the books as opposed to "based on" it can be a great experience. In this case I could get past my preconceptions and really enjoy the show. I think it's time for a rewatch. :)
Independence Day: Resurgence (2016)
An absolute joke
I went in with very low expectations. I came out flabbergasted and irritated on how absolutely horrible this sequel is.
I wonder if they even had a proper script since it seems they simply filmed straight from the storyboard. The actors didn't have to spend many hours doing this movie.
A lot of the run time was spent on CGI, a tool Emmerich seem to be using more and more to avoid having to actually direct actors and filming.
The entire story could fit in a few sentences. This is a disaster of a movie. I feel sorry for some of the actors who now have their names connected to this sordid product.
If you decide to watch it, do so on your own peril.
Constantine (2005)
Not even close...
I read and loved the comic book this movie is based on (Hellblazer).
The script writers did not even bother to keep the important climax from the original story. I've never expected a movie to be very very faithful to printed sources (books, comics) but this is ridiculous.
The movie is thin as spring ice with no depth, none of the cleverness and interesting side characters that appeared in the original story. It is simply not a Constantine movie. For people that have never even heard of the original character before the movie I guess this would be a 5-6/10 movie, okay to watch when bored. The two stars I gave this movie is for Peter Stormares and Tilda Swintons efforts. They are the only redeeming quality of this title.
For anyone that have even a fleeting hint of the Constantine story called Hellblazer, this Keanu Reeves (as Constantine? Why not Nicholas Cage as Gandalf??) time-waster isn't worth it's name.
Ash vs Evil Dead (2015)
Ash is back.
I had very ambivalent feelings towards a TV-series "sequel" to the original Evil Dead trilogy. I feared they couldn't get the same feeling or that it may become some kind of reboot (ie. disaster).
It started a bit shaky, lacking the "feel" of Evil Dead but towards mid-season there was a noticeable shift in the scripting and acting and every episode became more Evil Dead than the one before. The last couple of episodes of season one were proper sequel-stuff, complete with Ash being Ash.
If season two continues with the same (or better) quality and style as season one ended we're really getting something quite unique: a TV-series based on a comedy horror movie franchise with the same main actor reprising his role in the same quality and style of Evil Dead 2.
Space Cop (2016)
No reason to exist
Ignoring the production team's, their families and friends reviews this movie is trying to be a low-budget "consciously bad" comedy yet fails even at that.
The problem with this movie is that it's not funny even in a bad way, it's just a very very bad movie with no redeeming qualities whatsoever. The script, the dialogue and directing is utterly inane.
There are a whole bunch of recent movies that borrow from bad sci-fi action from the 80'ies and infuse them with a certain amount of self- satire that works great. Space Cop failed miserably at that.
You're better off with Kung Fury, Turbo Kid and dozens of other movies that excel in what they're trying to present.
Ubaldo Terzani Horror Show (2010)
Italian horror back on track?
Fresh Italian director Gabriele Albanesi has done something that no other Italian horror/thriller director has managed to do since Argento lost his touch in the early 90'ies. This is a creepy thriller/horror in Italian style that promises much for the future if Albanesi keeps going in that same direction.
I had basically given up on Italian horror cinema, and here comes Gabriele Albanesi and gives us a sweet preview of things to come. Loved the two main characters, the actors really did an amazing job.
There are small issues, like the dialogue between Sara and Alessio being slightly out of place, the pacing irregular at the beginning and other small issues, but I frankly wasn't bothered by them. Sergio Stivaletti simply did an amazing job on the blood and gore in the movie, but then he's a master.
The Fallen Ones (2005)
Should be deleted and forgotten
What a piece of junk this movie was. The premise was okay, but even in the beginning with crappy effects to blend in a giant with normal sized people (even the effects in Hercules was better) I knew this would be bad. But the really awful part of the movie is the dialogs. It's completely incoherent, silly and stupid. I felt like it had been written by some 9th grader in creative class and gotten a D-. I want to slap Casper van Diem and the other actors for following this movie through.
I've had my share of cheesy and bad movies (I love the tremors series), but this... I do not recommend it at all. It's silly and the totally flabbergastingly bad dialogs will make you cringe.
Phenomena (1985)
Phenomena rocks the boat.
This movie seems to be either loved or hated. Those that love it seems to be Argento fans that have succumbed to the style and imagination. Those that hate it seems to get annoyed at script flaws, soundtrack, actors etc.
Most of the criticizers seems to have missed the point. Dario Argentos movies is supposed to be watched and experienced, not dissected looking for flaws etc. which is true for most movies. I have the ability to turn the criticizer off when I watch movies, especially when it comes to horror/fantasy/scifi. They're movies, not documentaries, and they're not supposed to reflect your reality. Think of them as dreams, and we all know that dreams are most often illogical, strange and wonderful. That's the frame of mind I have when I watch Argento movies. And Phenomena is great in that aspect since it builds upon imagination.
Phenomena was the first Argento movie I watched, and it turned me into a big fan of his work. Donald Pleasance is great as useful, and Jennifer Connelly made many of us aware of how much we all want to meet her (at least the male audience). I watch this movie in much the same way as I did Suspiria (masterpiece), as a fantasy horror, a sweet nightmare. The first scene, where the Danish girl misses the bus and looks for help is unforgettable. The fact that the rest of the cast is a bunch of young and inexperienced teenagers is something most of the viewers familiar with Italian horror are used to.
Would I recommend this? Absolutely, it's one of the better Argento movies. Who would like it? Anybody with an open mind and interested in prime italian fantasy/horror.