On one hand the film is full of inexplicably dumb sequences, which should make a decent viewer loose any interest in it, but on the other there are scenes, which are so great, that the movie immediately justifies itself. So let's see... First of all I gotta tell, that (and it is quite a common cliché of modern horror films) the only relatively smart character is the black guy. Blake, pretty well played by Robert Richard by the way, had made numerous sane proposals, which, if they had been accepted by this bunch of white teens, could have saved their lives. But unfortunately the whites in the film, except for the maniacs, who are pretty witty, are actually one dumber than another. The characters are so dumb, that it somewhat harms the credibility of the movie. Here I gotta mention, that for the first time in a very long time I was actually siding with the killers, hoping, that they would kill all those morons as soon as possible! The guys are so stupid, that not only they decide to stay for the night next to a stinky graveyard, full of animal corpses, for two consecutive nights, prefer to return to an abandoned & creepy place instead of being patient enough to just wait in a traffic jam on the highway, but also keep on breaking in houses & shops snooping around in an utterly insolent manner. I mean, if I hypothetically invite a stranger to my home supposedly to help him, but what the stranger does is snooping through my personal belongings, then will I get mad, even if I am not a crazed maniac? Oh, sure I will! Yet some points of the story were good. I actually liked the fact, that two main characters are twins, which are quite different & they are opposed by Bo & Vincent Sinclair, also twins & also different. As for an attempt to develop multiple story lines & sub-plots... Well... The storyline with Paige Edwards's (played by Paris Hilton) supposed pregnancy is just straight ludicrous! Why should we care? Yet, I can't say, that the storyline with Wade, the dumbest idiot of all of them, refusing to move to New York, because he is afraid of is any better. I liked the villains though... I mean they are really crazy killers. Some scenes are impressive too: especially I liked the fake funerals, movie theater scene & burning house of wax. The visuals are good & I don't mean Paris Hilton's butt here, thought it's really good too. Some funny jokes are also there. There are some meaningful moments as well, despite the general idiocy of the characters, and this is the director's merit.
Reviews
17 Reviews
Fantastic Four
(I) (2005)
Fantastic or...
18 July 2005
I think there are basically two kinds of comic book movies. I love comic book movies, which actually have meaning. Daredevil, Spider-man 1 & 2 & Batman Begins are {meaningful}, intelligent pictures, which are self-sufficient even apart from their comic book origins. They are actually a kind of comic book based movies, that I like. Yet, we have another type of comic book movies: more cartooned, more "comic" to say so: Hellboy, Sin City, Punisher... Fantastic Four definitely belongs to the second group of films, yet I liked it way better than the three above-mentioned movies in this {cartooned} group. The acting in Fantastic Four is great. Especially Michael Chiklis, Jessica Alba, Chris Evans & Julian McMahon are doing an awesome job. Unfortunately the characters are too undeveloped to make the best out of their talent. The visuals are great, but we do have major problems with the direction of Tim Story, as well as with the story itself. While during the first half of the movie I was sitting & thinking like "Wow! I'm sure gonna buy this movie", in the second half I was like "Hmm... Not a bad movie to see one time" The film seems too rushed, characters are not well written & some supposed plot twists are rather questionable & primitive at best. Unbelievably, but the involvement of Chris Columbus in the project is felt throughout the movie. The production seems childish at times, though the humor is very good. Did I enjoy the movie? Kinda yes. Eye-catching visuals, funny jokes & charismatic actors work well. Will I put Fantastic Four on the shelf together with my licensed copies of Daredevil, Spider-man, Spider-man 2 &, soon, Batman Begins? Definitely NOT!
War of the Worlds
(2005)
Lacks Intensity
30 June 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Well, I think that Wells would have liked the movie. It is technically well done, the aliens & their machines are depicted very much like they are in the book, the visuals are keeping viewers on the edge of their seats. Some scenes are quite intense, especially memorable is the scene, when a burning train is going past the crowd of scared people & of course the battle scenes are breathtaking. I also liked a moment, when the crowd, consumed by fear, is ready to do anything to get the car, showing that humans are just as cruel as aliens. The acting was very good, yet Dakota's part was rather irritating. Direction though is somewhat questionable. I got an impression, that the film is rushed. I think it should've been longer. It doesn't have tension slowly building up as in The Independence Day. The aliens are appearing way too abruptly. We don't see much of the consequences of the war to the humanity, cause the story basically rotates around the Ferrier family & the action mainly takes place in small towns. Needless to say, that scenes of destruction of The Capitol, Empire State Building & the city of Los Angeles in The Independence Day looked more intense, showing the scale of the tragedy. The other small flaw of the War of the Worlds is that we have too little characters introduced. And, boy, how the hell Robbie survives? Now, that's way too unrealistic, even for this genre. And what the hell with the aliens: the scenes with the mirror & bicycle were irrelevant. Spielberg tries with the help of humor to relieve the tension, which is not really there & thus ruins a bit a dark & despair atmosphere, which is only starting to build up. I don't know, but I think that this film has got it all right, except the direction, which is not quite matching the whole thing. A movie like this would be more successful, if James Cameron or at least Roland Emmerich was in the director's chair. The film lacks tragedy, drama, emotional intensity, pain & agony. It's too light. It does keep you focused, but more because of the special effects & music. Something's not there. It could've been better.
Sin City
(2005)
Interesting. Original. Not Worth Watching.
28 May 2005
OK, frankly speaking, I am not sorry I have watched this one. But had I known in advance how it was going to be, I would very likely rather not see it. The flick is action packed & draws attention, but it is a one more evidence, that Rodriguez had long ago gone out of style. His early movies were violent, but, in the same time, ironic & smart. Not only Sin City has got no meaning, while being rather pretentious, it is extremely overloaded with, at times, absolutely unnecessary violence, nudity & cursing. The main strength &, in the same time, the greatest weakness of the film, is that the atmosphere of Sin City is depicted as straightforward & natural as possible. While it is a great achievement to make a film so dark & gloomy with absolutely no positive characters, it is in the same time a major disadvantage. Since all the characters of Sin City are complete scum, I haven't feel compassion to any of them, which made me kind of indifferent to the story. As I have already said, the movie is overloaded with brutality, & thus it is a little hard to perceive. The acting is not that good either or it is just unnoticed, since the characters are undeveloped. I think the best job, in terms of acting, was done by Benicio Del Torro. Others' acting works will be easily forgotten. To conclude, Sin City is a pretentious, over-hyped, overloaded with violence & nudity technically amazingly well done movie, but with too little humor, absolutely no meaning & no soul.
The Ring Two
(2005)
Mocks Original 'The Ring' More Brutally Than Scary Movie 3!
9 April 2005
Here it comes, the long-awaited sequel to the one of the most overrated, but still watchable & pretty scary though, Japanese-gone-Hollywood horror 'The Ring'... But, oops! Something doesn't fit, something hasn't worked out... Something? Hmm... Everything in the movie fails! Let's admit it, the story of 'The Ring' was very very questionable! Huge plot holes were here & there. But compared to this masterpiece of human brain disorder - the first Ring's story was as well put together as it gets, since 'The Ring Two' hasn't got any kind of combination of logical thoughts on which the movie is based, which I could force myself to call with such a word as 'story'. 'The Ring Two' is just one huge gaping plot hole, featuring a bunch of stale clichés & pitiful dialogs. Most of the parts, which were supposed to be horrifying were welcomed with viewers ironic laughter. Idiotic scenes in abundance here (just remember the sequence with the deers). OK, the direction is awful too! As you remember 'The Ring', despite above-mentioned plot holes was scary. As I think not only due to the writing, but mainly direction. The atmosphere of the film was heavy, dark, gloomy. Here we see quite the opposite: a lovely small town, optimistic view of the loony bin, even the house, where Samara used to live looks like a wonderful country home & not like a scary place it was in 'The Ring'. Seriously, even minors won't find a flick like this scary! The visuals... Well, to say that they are bad is to say nothing. The visuals are awful, truly primitive & not scary! Seriously the visuals in 'Charmed' look good compared to this one. Acting is as poor as it gets. Not believable: it is rather overacting we see or no acting at all. No acting at all is better I gotta say. Had this movie come out earlier, the Scary Movie 3 would've been totally unsuitable as a parody for 'The Ring'... Disgusting attempt to make more money by the studio bosses. Wait until the flick is on TV. It won't take long, trust me.
Boogeyman
(2005)
Are You Ready To Face Your Fears?
25 March 2005
The movie is really scary, overlook all the bad reviews stating the opposite. Have you ever been scared by some strange noises in your house, when you were trying to fall asleep in your room all alone when you were a kid? When you were a kid have you noticed that absolutely casual things in your room turned into something horrible as soon as you turned off the light? As a kid have you been scared so much you couldn't force yourself to open your eyes? If the answer to these questions is YES, the movie will definitely revive some of your childish fears & scary memories. Maybe not only childish. I mean, I'm not a kid anymore & ain't usually scared by the darkness, noises & stuff like that, but sometimes those childish fears are back & I feel that something bad is near me, in the closet, on the attic, in the basement or in the adjoining room. The director has made a wonderful job, creating the required atmosphere to reinstall the fears & insecurity of childhood in viewers' brains. While, the story is questionable sometimes, it is generally well-written & deserves praise. So does the acting, which might not be stellar, but still is very good. What's more important the movie is meaningful & provokes not only fears, but thoughts as well. I think this is a must see for horror fans!
Elektra
(2005)
Desrves Bad Press Much More Than Catwoman
12 March 2005
Considering, I'm a big fan of Daredevil movie and, specifically Jennifer Garner playing Elektra, I had pretty high expectations. Unfortunately, the movie left me very disappointed & somewhat confused with the fact I spent money on watching it. I ain't the only one with such feelings here, cause viewers in the theater were constantly leaving, even the guy who was sitting in front of me & looked amazingly like Jack Osbourne had a hard time making it to the end. For me the temptation to leave was one of the strongest since Kangaroo Jack.
The story is awful: at the end, what could've been an original movie, turns into a bad cocktail of X-Men, Mortal Combat & an average Venezuelan soap opera. It seems the director himself is aware of the fact that the movie is cheesy & tries to do whatever he can to improve it by the following things: using stale special effects, even when they're totally irrelevant; using lame martial arts & (TA DA!) even one of the recent trump cards of the modern showbiz - a lesbian kiss! But, alas, to no avail! As for acting: Jennifer Garner was the only one who tried to really act. The movie is a flop!
The story is awful: at the end, what could've been an original movie, turns into a bad cocktail of X-Men, Mortal Combat & an average Venezuelan soap opera. It seems the director himself is aware of the fact that the movie is cheesy & tries to do whatever he can to improve it by the following things: using stale special effects, even when they're totally irrelevant; using lame martial arts & (TA DA!) even one of the recent trump cards of the modern showbiz - a lesbian kiss! But, alas, to no avail! As for acting: Jennifer Garner was the only one who tried to really act. The movie is a flop!
The Turkish Gambit
(2005)
What a Disappointment!
12 March 2005
The advertising campaign for this movie in Russia was huge! Even more tremendous than for another Russian blockbuster - Nochnoi Dozor. But wait a second... What was the fuss all about? I really wanted to like this one, but... alas! I couldn't.
I was looking forward to see a really epic movie with the matching atmosphere, but what I got was nothing, but some kind of a pretty weird interpretation of the war. The disappointment from this film is very similar to the one after watching Cold Mountain.
The acting was good & deserves nothing, but praise. But what the hell is with the story? The whole Russian camp looks like a circus, some scenes are absolutely irrelevant, reminding me some stuff from dumb Wild Wild West movie & the scene with the air-balloon is one of the most ridiculous ever! But the main problem is... predictability! I knew who the spy was long before the end of the film! To tell you the truth, I really wanted to leave, but decided to stay & see if I was right in my guessing. Needles to say, I was.
I was looking forward to see a really epic movie with the matching atmosphere, but what I got was nothing, but some kind of a pretty weird interpretation of the war. The disappointment from this film is very similar to the one after watching Cold Mountain.
The acting was good & deserves nothing, but praise. But what the hell is with the story? The whole Russian camp looks like a circus, some scenes are absolutely irrelevant, reminding me some stuff from dumb Wild Wild West movie & the scene with the air-balloon is one of the most ridiculous ever! But the main problem is... predictability! I knew who the spy was long before the end of the film! To tell you the truth, I really wanted to leave, but decided to stay & see if I was right in my guessing. Needles to say, I was.
Lilya 4-Ever
(2002)
Realistic To The Core
4 November 2004
The movie is extremely sad & hard to watch, cause of its unbelievably realistic picture of poverty, humiliation & depression in which the vast majority of people in the former USSR republics live, including here in Russia. The minority of those who have still managed to keep being human beings in this mess is surrounded & slowly devastated by demoralised animals, created by the decades of communist reign. The realism of the picture is overwhelming & scary. It is so unexpected that a Swedish director have managed to see all the sadness, corruption, violence & immorality of post-USSR space much more clearly than any Russian director ever will. Probably, it is because most people here in Russia see the hell which is going on around them as a normal thing. That's why we need movies such as this - to face the truth, we are so trying to escape in everyday life. Plus, the film exposes the problem of human traffic in such true-to-life manner, it is painful. Worth watching for former USSR citizens, in order to wake-up & realize how degenerate they're becoming. Worth watching for foreigners in order to understand how the 99% of people in Russia & other post-soviet countries live, outside the glamorous & fake facades of Moscow city.
Catwoman
(2004)
Makes Your Eyes Enjoy, While Your Brain Rests
29 October 2004
I think the movie was butchered unfairly by so many critics & viewers. It is really worth seeing, at least once. The special effect are very good & are complemented with great soundtrack. As for Halle Berry, I think she was a great choice for the role of Catwoman: her plastic movements & expressive eyes are relevant additions to her great acting.
The film features some very impressive fighting sequences, though the story in general is too straightforward & predictable with only two rather primitive story lines. The direction is also far from being perfect, to put it mildly, cause Pitof, whoever it is, definitely has problems with sense of time. Plus, the camera zooms in on Halle Berry's ass so often throughout the movie, that, I still don't know why, but it is becoming annoying.
What the movie lacks is depth & meaning, otherwise it is a good action. Despite all the bad write ups & negative comments, I went to see the movie & I'm not sorry. Great Halle Berry's acting, breathtaking special effects, outstanding director of photography's job & catchy soundtrack makes Catwoman a sweet eye-candy, worth watching at least once.
The film features some very impressive fighting sequences, though the story in general is too straightforward & predictable with only two rather primitive story lines. The direction is also far from being perfect, to put it mildly, cause Pitof, whoever it is, definitely has problems with sense of time. Plus, the camera zooms in on Halle Berry's ass so often throughout the movie, that, I still don't know why, but it is becoming annoying.
What the movie lacks is depth & meaning, otherwise it is a good action. Despite all the bad write ups & negative comments, I went to see the movie & I'm not sorry. Great Halle Berry's acting, breathtaking special effects, outstanding director of photography's job & catchy soundtrack makes Catwoman a sweet eye-candy, worth watching at least once.
Hellboy
(2004)
Boy, What the Hell?
27 September 2004
The whole idea of the movie was original & somewhat funny, so I was really expecting a much better story. Grigori Rasputin, Karl Ruprect Kroenen & Ilsa were excellent villains, but those cheesy monsters were quite annoying. I'm not talking about Abe Sapien, who was irritating at best. Why would Rasputin with all his evil powers use some dumb monsters for destroying the world? And how comes Del Torro thinks the details of these monsters' reproductive system is interesting for the viewers? At times I was wondering what was on the screen: a new installment of Harry Potter or a Ghostbusters reunion.
The acting is not great either. Though Ron Perlman was OK, the best performance I think was done by Karel Roden. As for the other cast members they were mostly not good. Selma Blair was particularly unconvincing.
Special effects are pretty good, but sometimes senseless & unnecessary. As for direction, it was something, which basically saved the film.
Despite the enormous stupidity of this flick, it has got a very inspiring & well written ending. It somewhat compensates the flaws of Hellboy: at least after the film my mood was improved & I didn't want my money back. Yet, this is not a good picture, so go for better options, if you have them.
The acting is not great either. Though Ron Perlman was OK, the best performance I think was done by Karel Roden. As for the other cast members they were mostly not good. Selma Blair was particularly unconvincing.
Special effects are pretty good, but sometimes senseless & unnecessary. As for direction, it was something, which basically saved the film.
Despite the enormous stupidity of this flick, it has got a very inspiring & well written ending. It somewhat compensates the flaws of Hellboy: at least after the film my mood was improved & I didn't want my money back. Yet, this is not a good picture, so go for better options, if you have them.
The Girl Next Door
(2004)
Funny, Yet Forgettable
18 September 2004
The movie is good or at least not bad. It could've been much better though, if not for the stupid story. It is really silly. There are a lot of dumb, but funny movies out there, but this one had potential. I mean, a high school graduate falling in love with a porn star was actually nice idea. It could've become a very romantic, inspiring movie, but the director apparently decided to emphasize the comic aspect of the picture, thus sacrificing character development & general credibility. The jokes, to tell the truth, are not hilarious either. They are likely to bring a smile up on your face & keep it throughout the movie, but you ain't gonna be laughing your head off.
What saves this movie is outstanding acting! Such a wonderful performance by the cast alone makes The Girl Next Door worth watching. The on-screen chemistry between Emile Hirsch & Elisha Cuthbert is undoubtful. James Remar is charismatic as usual & Timothy Olyphant is almost perfect. The funniest role is played incredibly successfully by Chris Marquette, who at times steals the show completely.
I'd like also to mention the great soundtrack, which totally suites the movie & is I think worth purchasing.
In the end, this sappy comedy is likely to improve your mood & you'll probably enjoy great acting. Yet, this is not what it could be & it's far from being a mandatory entity in one's DVD or VHS collection.
What saves this movie is outstanding acting! Such a wonderful performance by the cast alone makes The Girl Next Door worth watching. The on-screen chemistry between Emile Hirsch & Elisha Cuthbert is undoubtful. James Remar is charismatic as usual & Timothy Olyphant is almost perfect. The funniest role is played incredibly successfully by Chris Marquette, who at times steals the show completely.
I'd like also to mention the great soundtrack, which totally suites the movie & is I think worth purchasing.
In the end, this sappy comedy is likely to improve your mood & you'll probably enjoy great acting. Yet, this is not what it could be & it's far from being a mandatory entity in one's DVD or VHS collection.
EuroTrip
(2004)
Excellent Absurd Comedy: Funnier Than American Pie
17 August 2004
This movie is hilarious & a must see for those who like American Pie, Scary Movie, Senseless & similar types of comedies. Eurotrip uses almost every single cliché or stereotype regarding Europe & exaggerates it enormously in an unbelievably funny way.
Surprisingly the acting, which is done mainly by unknown actors & actresses, is very good. As for Michelle Trachtenberg, she is just plain awesome. Her acting deserves real praise. Plus, the film features several pretty successful cameo appearances. Lucy Lawless as S&M dominatrix is particularly hilarious.
Though the story itself can't be considered particularly original, the movie is interesting, cause of unstoppable flow of hilarious jokes. The theater was almost torn down with the viewers' laughter, when I watched the film. The scene with The Pope is an instant classic in my point of view, I haven't seen something this hilarious since the first Scary Movie came out. Some satirical aspects also take place in the movie: especially funny was the scene, when the characters arrive to a club in Slovakia & hear a techno remix of a song 'Scotty Doesn't Know'. Awesome moment.
In general, I think the film is underrated. In my opinion it is better than the first & the second American Pie, the second Scary Movie & a great number of less famous comedies. Go see it & have fun.
Surprisingly the acting, which is done mainly by unknown actors & actresses, is very good. As for Michelle Trachtenberg, she is just plain awesome. Her acting deserves real praise. Plus, the film features several pretty successful cameo appearances. Lucy Lawless as S&M dominatrix is particularly hilarious.
Though the story itself can't be considered particularly original, the movie is interesting, cause of unstoppable flow of hilarious jokes. The theater was almost torn down with the viewers' laughter, when I watched the film. The scene with The Pope is an instant classic in my point of view, I haven't seen something this hilarious since the first Scary Movie came out. Some satirical aspects also take place in the movie: especially funny was the scene, when the characters arrive to a club in Slovakia & hear a techno remix of a song 'Scotty Doesn't Know'. Awesome moment.
In general, I think the film is underrated. In my opinion it is better than the first & the second American Pie, the second Scary Movie & a great number of less famous comedies. Go see it & have fun.
Daredevil
(2003)
Don't Believe The Haters, This Movie Is AWESOME!
29 July 2004
Not only I have watched Daredevil 4 times in the theater, I also own VHS & watch it regularly. A lot of people misconceived the movie & labeled it as mediocre or even bad. But this movie is no way bad.
In fact Daredevil is one of the greatest comic book movies ever along with Spider-Man! (And please don't mention Batman here. Yep, Batman was fun, but what about the meaning?) Some people dare to claim, that DD is a rip-off of Spidey. That's totally not true. I deem Spider-Man & Daredevil are equally brilliant, but they're very different in the same time. While Spider-Man focuses more on the problem of choice between good & evil, the problem of sacrifice, power & personality conflicts, Daredevil brings up the issues of vengeance, justice & the thin line between good & evil. Daredevil is more of an anti-hero compared to Spider-Man, cause Matt takes justice in his own hands & is more of destroyer rather than creator.
Ben Affleck is brilliant as Matt Murdock/Daredevil: he totally understood his character & managed to play him credibly. Jennifer Garner's character was quite underdeveloped, but we'll sure see her potential in Elektra. Michael Clarke Duncan is an ideal Kingpin, despite many complaints that the role should've been played by a white actor. The race here doesn't play any role I think. Colin Farrell is very great as Bullseye as well, though I've heard some complaints that his costume is different from the one in the comic books. The acting is really great & you'll see it if you really concentrate on the movie, not your pop-corn.
Mark Steven Johnson has managed to create a magnificent film noire like atmosphere, which totally suits the movie in a perfect way. The picture is complimented with a great soundtrack, which I have also purchased. The visuals are very good either.
I personally can't understand how can anyone rate this movie lower than 7. I mean, if you like comic book movies - you theoretically will like Daredevil. I've heard some comments on how unrealistic this movie is: well, since when comic books are realistic. But Daredevil has got what Batman lacks: meaning, deepness & emotionality. It's not Spider-man, it is different, but equally outstanding & sure worth watching.
In fact Daredevil is one of the greatest comic book movies ever along with Spider-Man! (And please don't mention Batman here. Yep, Batman was fun, but what about the meaning?) Some people dare to claim, that DD is a rip-off of Spidey. That's totally not true. I deem Spider-Man & Daredevil are equally brilliant, but they're very different in the same time. While Spider-Man focuses more on the problem of choice between good & evil, the problem of sacrifice, power & personality conflicts, Daredevil brings up the issues of vengeance, justice & the thin line between good & evil. Daredevil is more of an anti-hero compared to Spider-Man, cause Matt takes justice in his own hands & is more of destroyer rather than creator.
Ben Affleck is brilliant as Matt Murdock/Daredevil: he totally understood his character & managed to play him credibly. Jennifer Garner's character was quite underdeveloped, but we'll sure see her potential in Elektra. Michael Clarke Duncan is an ideal Kingpin, despite many complaints that the role should've been played by a white actor. The race here doesn't play any role I think. Colin Farrell is very great as Bullseye as well, though I've heard some complaints that his costume is different from the one in the comic books. The acting is really great & you'll see it if you really concentrate on the movie, not your pop-corn.
Mark Steven Johnson has managed to create a magnificent film noire like atmosphere, which totally suits the movie in a perfect way. The picture is complimented with a great soundtrack, which I have also purchased. The visuals are very good either.
I personally can't understand how can anyone rate this movie lower than 7. I mean, if you like comic book movies - you theoretically will like Daredevil. I've heard some comments on how unrealistic this movie is: well, since when comic books are realistic. But Daredevil has got what Batman lacks: meaning, deepness & emotionality. It's not Spider-man, it is different, but equally outstanding & sure worth watching.
The Punisher
(2004)
Nice Comedy!
22 July 2004
No, no there's no mistake in the title of my review, mind you! Yet, there's clearly a mistake in this movie's genre definition. Cause, yes, it IS a freaking comedy! Maybe if it was originally marketed as a comedy or a parody on Marvel's The Punisher, I'd be more soft & rate it 5 or even 6, cause the jokes were really funny sometimes. But, guys, seriously, this is not a gangster action or a thriller! Too bad...
Direction & production of the movie is inexplicable. The director & the writers totally misconceived the general idea of The Punisher. It is a story of a man, who has nothing to lose, who thinks he's above the law, that he is the law. He knows no compassion & no love, his verdict is the ultimate truth. He also has flashbacks of his family as well as he sees the faces of the people he killed in the nightmares. This movie should've been extremely violent, ruthless to the point. It should have been a film noire with very dark atmosphere. What we get is a cheesy comedy action. Seriously R rated? I'd rate it PG-13 if not for the nudity! The movie features too much unnecessary humour (funny, but this is not what we expected!) & the fighting scenes also look ludicrous!
The acting is almost mediocre at best. Thomas Jane doesn't feel or understand his character. Making a tough face & staring somewhere far away is not enough to play Frank Castle. John Travolta & Laura Harring make excellent villains, too bad the story is so bad it couldn't provide this talented duo with decent creative outlet. As for the other actors, their names ain't even worth mentioning.
The punishment for us viewers was too severe. Watching two hours of comic action scenes is not what we expected. The writers had an excellent idea at their disposal, yet they've managed to screw up this movie totally!
Direction & production of the movie is inexplicable. The director & the writers totally misconceived the general idea of The Punisher. It is a story of a man, who has nothing to lose, who thinks he's above the law, that he is the law. He knows no compassion & no love, his verdict is the ultimate truth. He also has flashbacks of his family as well as he sees the faces of the people he killed in the nightmares. This movie should've been extremely violent, ruthless to the point. It should have been a film noire with very dark atmosphere. What we get is a cheesy comedy action. Seriously R rated? I'd rate it PG-13 if not for the nudity! The movie features too much unnecessary humour (funny, but this is not what we expected!) & the fighting scenes also look ludicrous!
The acting is almost mediocre at best. Thomas Jane doesn't feel or understand his character. Making a tough face & staring somewhere far away is not enough to play Frank Castle. John Travolta & Laura Harring make excellent villains, too bad the story is so bad it couldn't provide this talented duo with decent creative outlet. As for the other actors, their names ain't even worth mentioning.
The punishment for us viewers was too severe. Watching two hours of comic action scenes is not what we expected. The writers had an excellent idea at their disposal, yet they've managed to screw up this movie totally!
The Day After Tomorrow
(2004)
The Heroes Are Among Us
28 May 2004
The movie's been released in my country on May, 27 & I have already watched it two times. In fact, I'm planning to watch it for the third time in the nearest future.
I think the movie doesn't deserve a lot of bad reviews given to it by those critics. The direction by Roland Emmerich is literally Oscar-worthy. He's done even greater job here, than with The Independence Day. The visual effects are breathtaking & aesthetically gorgeous, while scary in the same time. The action is complemented perfectly with intense & passionate music, written by Harold Kloser. In fact the movie features the best music score, I've heard recently. The story is credible & dynamic, though some questions could arise.
OK, so I've heard some complaints about acting. Indeed, the acting in The Independence Day was better, but in The Day After Tomorrow it's not bad either. Dennis Quaid is believable in portraying determined & strong-willed scientist. The young stars Jake Gyllenhaal & Emmy Rossum are also doing their job quite well. Plus, the movie features a bunch of talented African-American actors! So the acting could be better, but it's no way bad.
Others say the movie is too idealistic. Well, that's true. But I think this is a major advantage for the picture, though the viewers, who are getting more & more cynical & livid each year might not appreciate this. The film is promoting very positive ideas: family values, equality of races, unity of nations, morality & kindness. Plus, it's sending a strong message of patriotism. The scene where the survivors are approaching the ice-covered Statue of Liberty even brought tears in my eyes! The film is spiced up with good humour & some original plot twists.
The Day After Tomorrow is a film, which is uplifting, inspiring & very patriotic! It's going to show you, that you don't need to kill bad guys with some heavy weapons, while belting out cynical jokes to be a hero. The real heroes are among us & you can be one too, if be kinder to others & do your job well, no matter what.
I think the movie doesn't deserve a lot of bad reviews given to it by those critics. The direction by Roland Emmerich is literally Oscar-worthy. He's done even greater job here, than with The Independence Day. The visual effects are breathtaking & aesthetically gorgeous, while scary in the same time. The action is complemented perfectly with intense & passionate music, written by Harold Kloser. In fact the movie features the best music score, I've heard recently. The story is credible & dynamic, though some questions could arise.
OK, so I've heard some complaints about acting. Indeed, the acting in The Independence Day was better, but in The Day After Tomorrow it's not bad either. Dennis Quaid is believable in portraying determined & strong-willed scientist. The young stars Jake Gyllenhaal & Emmy Rossum are also doing their job quite well. Plus, the movie features a bunch of talented African-American actors! So the acting could be better, but it's no way bad.
Others say the movie is too idealistic. Well, that's true. But I think this is a major advantage for the picture, though the viewers, who are getting more & more cynical & livid each year might not appreciate this. The film is promoting very positive ideas: family values, equality of races, unity of nations, morality & kindness. Plus, it's sending a strong message of patriotism. The scene where the survivors are approaching the ice-covered Statue of Liberty even brought tears in my eyes! The film is spiced up with good humour & some original plot twists.
The Day After Tomorrow is a film, which is uplifting, inspiring & very patriotic! It's going to show you, that you don't need to kill bad guys with some heavy weapons, while belting out cynical jokes to be a hero. The real heroes are among us & you can be one too, if be kinder to others & do your job well, no matter what.
Cold Mountain
(2003)
I Got Punk'd
12 March 2004
Actually I had major doubts about watching this movie, but when I saw the trailer, I though that it was going to be awesome. Unfortunately the trailer contained ALL the best scenes from this extremely long movie! I wasn't aware of that & naively thought, the movie could offer me something more.
What I totally hated is that there was ONLY ONE battle scene in the movie!!! The one which was going on for something like 5 minutes & was shown in the trailer! Yep, no more battle scenes for the entire 2 & half hour movie about the civil war! What the hell? Is Miramax in such bad financial state? Couldn't it have afforded battle scenes or what?
Apparently most of the money was spent on the actors' salaries. Yeah, money well spent, since most actors in this movie couldn't do the most important thing - portray credible characters! Yeah, they were all wonderful at moaning, whining, crying & expressing different emotions. But did they manage to make us viewers believe that depicted characters could have existed in real? NO! The acting was very emotional in the beginning & got simply pathetic by the end of the flick. The only one, who's done her job well was Renee Zellweger!!! Her acting was awesome & it was the ONLY thing I enjoyed about Cold Mountain!!!
The movie is based on the book, which I haven't read, so maybe I ain't gonna be very fair. But to me the story seemed to be quite sappy. It featured some goofs & stupid plot lines. It would be OK, if the actors were able to play believably, but they couldn't & all the flaws became evident to the viewers.
Maybe the direction is to be blamed on such far-fetched performance. The movie focuses too much on emotions, but it sometimes doesn't make sense. Apparently, the idea was to show the misery of civil citizens, who suffered the terrible consequences of war. The director failed to do this. The main character is running through the woods & swamps occasionally coming across some civil personages, who are mostly weird & don't meet sympathy from viewers.
To sum up, the flick appeared a far-fetched, pathetic,unpatriotic, cheap anti-war crap to me. And if to be honest, I felt some compassion towards the characters in the beginning, but by the end of it I could care less, because of terrible direction & over-acting. The movie has some clear anti-war trend, but it seems ludicrous, cause the war itself wasn't even shown well enough .
According to the trailer, it was gonna be an uplifting patriotic film with vivid breathtaking battle scenes. In real, it sucked. I got punk'd. But I guess, it was my fault. I should have read the book at first.
P.S.: Harvey what Oscar award are you talking about? You're lucky to be even nominated!
What I totally hated is that there was ONLY ONE battle scene in the movie!!! The one which was going on for something like 5 minutes & was shown in the trailer! Yep, no more battle scenes for the entire 2 & half hour movie about the civil war! What the hell? Is Miramax in such bad financial state? Couldn't it have afforded battle scenes or what?
Apparently most of the money was spent on the actors' salaries. Yeah, money well spent, since most actors in this movie couldn't do the most important thing - portray credible characters! Yeah, they were all wonderful at moaning, whining, crying & expressing different emotions. But did they manage to make us viewers believe that depicted characters could have existed in real? NO! The acting was very emotional in the beginning & got simply pathetic by the end of the flick. The only one, who's done her job well was Renee Zellweger!!! Her acting was awesome & it was the ONLY thing I enjoyed about Cold Mountain!!!
The movie is based on the book, which I haven't read, so maybe I ain't gonna be very fair. But to me the story seemed to be quite sappy. It featured some goofs & stupid plot lines. It would be OK, if the actors were able to play believably, but they couldn't & all the flaws became evident to the viewers.
Maybe the direction is to be blamed on such far-fetched performance. The movie focuses too much on emotions, but it sometimes doesn't make sense. Apparently, the idea was to show the misery of civil citizens, who suffered the terrible consequences of war. The director failed to do this. The main character is running through the woods & swamps occasionally coming across some civil personages, who are mostly weird & don't meet sympathy from viewers.
To sum up, the flick appeared a far-fetched, pathetic,unpatriotic, cheap anti-war crap to me. And if to be honest, I felt some compassion towards the characters in the beginning, but by the end of it I could care less, because of terrible direction & over-acting. The movie has some clear anti-war trend, but it seems ludicrous, cause the war itself wasn't even shown well enough .
According to the trailer, it was gonna be an uplifting patriotic film with vivid breathtaking battle scenes. In real, it sucked. I got punk'd. But I guess, it was my fault. I should have read the book at first.
P.S.: Harvey what Oscar award are you talking about? You're lucky to be even nominated!
Tell Your Friends