Change Your Image
jlsanchez01
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Resident Evil: Extinction (2007)
A slight improvement on the awful APOCALYPSE
First of all, I'm a fan of the games who liked the first movie. However, the horrible first sequel killed this franchise for me. After the pain that was sitting through that mess, I thought I could never enjoy any further RE installments. And yet, I found EXTINCTION more or less entertaining.
Be warned that this movie is far from great: The plot is highly derivative. In fact, it's MAD MAX 2: THE ROAD WARRIOR with zombies (and with Alice using the Force from time to time). Once again, gone is the horror and the oppressive atmosphere of the games; there's just some MATRIX-style action. Mila Jovovich's acting is as bad as her ridiculous costume. Of the other returning characters from APOCALYPSE, one is the annoying L.J. (who at least gets what he deserves, he he), Carlos is given little to do and only the evil Dr. Isaacs has something of an (over the top) storyline. All the other supporting characters are just thrown in without a proper introduction, so we can hardly care when they are killed. And as much as I hated the truckload of flashbacks from the original movie that plagued APOCALYPSE, I missed some sort of explanation on how the virus was spread over the entire world and what happened to Jill Valentine and Angie Ashford after the first sequel.
I guess my expectations were so low that I was impressed by the plus side: Russell Mulcahy's direction is way above the crimes against cinema that Alexander Witt committed in APOCALYPSE. The action scenes are well staged and shot this time (except for that idiotic THE BIRDS homage/rip-off). I specially liked the tie-ins with the original movie, like the opening scene, the new Umbrella facility (shown again through computer graphics) and the White Queen. Bringing two more characters from the games (Claire Redfield and Albert Wesker) was also a nice touch. I had a little problem with Ali Larter, though. I've always liked her, and during the first season of HEROES she has proved to be not only a believable action heroine, but also a better actress than I thought. The problem is that she is NOT Claire Redfield. In spite of that, I wouldn't mind if, as some rumors say, she takes over Mila Jovovich's Alice in a future RESIDENT EVIL 4. Maybe then, this franchise will become something closer to the games, instead of the Mila Jovovich show.
Resident Evil: Apocalypse (2004)
Crappy sequel.
I'm a fan of the games who liked the first movie. But man, how I hate this sequel. Everything that made the original so good has been either ruined or ignored here. RESIDENT EVIL: APOCALYPSE is more a video game than a real movie. 'That's what it's supposed to be' you may say. Well, the problem is that any of the RE games has a better story, better direction and even better acting than this boring mess.
RE: APOCALYPSE is basically a series of unexciting and badly shot action scenes loosely joined by a paper-thin story. There is no lack of character development here, if only because there are no characters in this movie, just cardboard cut-outs. The actors do what they can with what they are given, but you never get to care much for any of them. Milla Jovovich looks very hot again, but she seems to be sleep-walking most of the time, in spite of all the action stuff. The rest are more or less serviceable except for Mike Epps, who is deeply annoying as the supposedly funny black token character/comic relief.
If you thought Paul W. S. Anderson was a bad director, you are going to miss him here. Alexander Witt's direction is so bad that he makes Michael Bay look like James Cameron. Apparently, he's one of those guys who think that an action movie must be a 90 minute-long video-clip. He keeps using bad post-production slow-motion and awful editing techniques to make sure that you can hardly tell what's going on, specially during the non-stop action scenes. And just in case that's not enough, there are moments when, for instance, tenths of zombies suddenly teleport into an empty room to kill a disposable supporting character.
As I said, the plot is basically non-existent, in part because the movie feels very choppy. The (so-called) characters keep showing up in different locations, but we hardly see how or why they got there. We aren't even told how some of them escaped from a church surrounded by hordes of undead. After all, that's not necessary, because the makers of this movie assume that their target audience is made up of people who turn off their brains and become zombies the moment they step into a movie theater. But you know: Suspension of disbelief is one thing; brain damage is something entirely different. The former makes you accept that the dead may walk, the later forcefully feeds you with everything else in this movie.
In short: If you liked the original, you'll be disappointed with this sequel (to say the least). Unless, of course, you are one of those guys who only care about hot babes kicking ass and think than people like me are stupid film critic wannabes. If not, see the DAWN OF THE DEAD remake instead. It's the same, but good.
Resident Evil (2002)
True to the games
(Minor Spoilers)
As a fan of the Resident Evil games, I wasn't expecting much from this movie, but I was pleasantly surprised. I know Paul W. S. Anderson is hated by many, mostly because of MORTAL COMBAT and SOLDIER, but I think this is by far his best directing (and writing) work.
What I like the most is how the movie stays true to the spirit of the games in spite of moving away from the original plot and characters. The story is sort of a "re-imagination" of the first game with a few things taken from the second (mostly the Liker, the train sequences and the ending), but you can find the key elements that make up the Resident Evil universe: Racoon City, the Umbrella Corporation, the T-virus, the zombies, the dogs... And though none of the original characters appear in the movie, those created specifically for it could fit nicely into the games: Alice is some sort of a mix between Jill Valentine and Claire Redfield, Matt seems inspired by Leon S. Kennedy, Spence seems inspired by Wesker, and Colin Salmon's character is a compendium of all the Umbrella operatives seen through the games. The actors are serviceable, and I think Salmon stands out in spite of his limited screen time. Mila Jovovich is also perfectly cast as Alice, and though she's not a great actress, she makes the part her own. Michelle Rodriguez is also good, if only because she plays the same character in all of her movies. Of course, more character development would have been welcome, but I think there is enough for an action movie. Also, the script cleverly avoids a common mistake in this kind of 'combat team in hostile ground' stories: The most generic and interchangeable characters are killed early on (I wish Salmon had survived longer, though), so you can focus your attention in the rest unlike in the recent STARSHIP TROOPERS 2, where there were too many cardboard cut-outs
I mean characters.
Another area where RE succeeds is in the balance between horror and action. Just like the games, the movie kicks off in what is (more or less) our everyday world, and quickly turns into a nightmare. The settings reproduce what you are used to find in the games, like the mansion, the laboratory, the train, etc. They all help to create the right atmosphere for the movie. On the plot side, I know the use of amnesia as a narrative device has been done to death, but here it serves the narration well: Just like Alice, we find step by step where we are and what is going on. Some scenes are adequately creepy and well handled, like the moment when the zombies show up for the first time. The action scenes are well edited, so you can tell what's going on (a rarity these days). The pace is also good, except for a few moments when you can tell that some scenes have been cut (particularly at the end of the conversation where Matt reveals his true identity to Alice). I also liked the epilogue. Though a bit overlong, it has the greatest Resident Evil feel in the movie (particularly the final shot).
Overall, this is a good horror/action movie, specially for those who liked the games. As always happens, some of them may be disappointed, but I still think we've been far luckier than most Tomb Raider fans.
AVP: Alien vs. Predator (2004)
A (potentially) decent movie ruined in the editing room.
(Minor Spoilers)
First of all, I'm a fan of the Alien and Predator franchises. Like most other fans, I liked the firs ALIEN and I loved ALIENS, but I was seriously disappointed by ALIEN 3 and only a little less by ALIEN: RESURRECTION. On the other hand, I almost enjoyed PREDATOR 2 more than the original PREDATOR. I agree that the original is a better movie, though (make of that what you want). Since I liked the first RESIDENT EVIL (haven't seen APOCALYPSE yet), I wasn't as appalled as many when I learned Paul W.S. Anderson was directing. Now that I've seen the movie, I still think he did and okay job, but the end result is kind of a mess because of studio interference (or at least that seems to be the reason according to Anderson).
The first act is probably the worst: I agree that in a movie called ALIEN vs. PREDATOR human characters are not that important, but if we are going to expend about half of the running time with them before our beloved monsters show up and steal the show, they should have tried to flesh out the characters a bit. After all, we see most of the movie from their point of view, right? Sanaa Lathan is not a bad actress, but I'm afraid she suffers from a lack of charisma and tries a little too hard to be a Ripley wannabe. In the first two ALIEN movies, Ripley was not a tough girl who loved extreme sports. She was just a regular woman who had to fight for her life and for other people's lives. In fact, there are moments in both movies when she just can't stand the pressure and briefly breaks down. Alexa Woods (Lathan's character) looks more like the poor man's Lara Croft. Lance Henriksen, on the other hand, is a treat for any Alien fan, and I think they did a good job using his character to tie this movie with the rest of the Alien franchise. Too bad he was just a special guest star, but at least he had more screen time than in ALIEN 3. Of the rest of the cast, the only ones I really liked were Colin Salmon and Ewen Bremmer. Salmon plays more or less his character form RESIDENT EVIL, and once again he dies too soon (not as soon as in RE, though). As for Bremmer, I loved to see Spud from TRAINSPOTTING in this kind of movie. His character may be annoying at times, but overall I had some fun with him. Of the two archaeologists, one was a cardboard cut-out made up to deliver some of the expository dialogue. In other words: Cannon fodder. The other was only slightly more developed: She was Italian and it was hinted that he was attracted to Alexa. Of course, that means he was doomed. The blonde girl with the gun (her only two distinctive features) didn't seem to serve a purpose other than to have more than one woman in the movie. I welcomed her quick demise. There were other anonymous co-stars who bough the farm without anybody caring about them. I wonder why Anderson didn't do what he did in RESIDENT EVIL (killing the supporting cast as soon as possible), but most of them were redundant. Nice to see the medic from RE in the opening scene, though.
The story really kicks off when the fight begins, midway though the movie. It was a shame that two of the three predators died so soon, but at least one of them had a great fight scene that was better than anything seen on ALIEN 3 or RESURRECTION. The remaining alien and his weaponry were still great to watch. I know many didn't like his teaming up with Alexa, but I think it was a nice reference to the comic-book (as well as the distinctive scar made with the acid). Besides: Alexa helped him (the first human in a Predator movie to do so). The plot was more or less respectful with the Alien and Predator lore, except for one obvious problem that many have pointed out: Predators only come to earth on specially hot summers, and AvP is set in freaking Antartica. That said, the pyramid and the idea of the Predators having been considered as gods in the past is fine with me.
What really makes this movie sort of a let down in spite of several good bits are the bi-dimensional characters, the rushed narrative and the PG-13 rating. I hope someday we'll see an R-rated Special Edition on DVD with some deleted scenes restored. Till that day, this is an okay movie, but not the great event we all wish it was.
Starship Troopers 2: Hero of the Federation (2004)
Doesn't Work (Minor Spoilers)
I really wanted to like this movie. I loved the first STARSHIP TROOPERS, so I was happy when I knew they were making a sequel. I was even happier when I learned that Brenda Strong was coming back with a more relevant part. I knew from day one that this was a low budget, more horror-oriented project, so I was not expecting a big epic like the original. And yet I can't be more disappointed.
I appreciate the effort put into making STARSHIP TROOPERS 2, but the best intentions do not always a good movie make. This movie is stripped of all that made the original so good (except for Brenda, who's a great actress). Ed Neumeier's script is very poor and derivative, ripping off everything from ALIENS to THE THING, THE HIDDEN or PITCH BLACK. You have seen most of the plot devices before, and worst of all, you have seen them done better. Any B-movie lover can predict the (so-called) twists and tell what's going to happen next. Besides, you always know who is human and who is not, so there is no suspense.
The characters are mostly flat and interchangeable. Yes, the same happened in the original, but there at least you had the time to get to know them. Here, you can't care less about them. Richard Burgi is a little better than I expected (frankly, I wasn't expecting much). He was lucky enough to get one of the only two well-written characters here, but he is still miles away from what Clancy Brown could have done as Zim (I know he wasn't available, so I don't blame the filmmakers for that). Colleen Porch has the other developed character and she is more or less okay. Ed Lauter, Brenda Strong and Lawrence Monoson have to struggle to get something out of their one-dimensional parts. Lauter has been playing that sort of character for decades, so he is good even in autopilot mode (as he obviously is here). Brenda is also good, if a little over the top, but that may have been intentional (I wonder why she hasn't played more action heroines before). Monoson isn't so good, probably because his character is unlikeable and his psychic powers seem as good as a broken TV. The rest are little more than extras with a few lines. Ed Quinn in particular has just two facial expressions. And Kelly Carlson is another dumb blonde who can only act from her neck down. I give some credit to J. P. Manoux though, because I found his performance quite funny.
I admit the CGI effects are very good, but they can't save a movie when the characters and the script are so bad. Ironically, that's something this movie has in common with EPISODE I, except that the action scenes there were good. Here, they are poorly staged and shot, so they lack any real excitement. Have you seen the moment when Soda shoots Dax and Sahara almost point blank and misses??? Even the short fight between Sgt. Zim and Dizzy Flores in the original was far better. Apparently, somebody thought they only needed to throw in a couple of (poor lightened) tits and some (fake looking) gore to make this movie work. Because, you know, those are the only things those stupid Starship Troopers fans (like myself) care about.
With all my respects to Phil Tippett, I think he is a lousy director. When you use darkness like that you don't create an atmosphere, you just make the audience think there was no money for bulbs. And the camera shakes too much. If he was trying to create some SAVING PRIVATE RYAN or BLAIR WITCH PROJECT mood, he fails miserably.
And now I get to the real problem with this movie: It has nothing to do with the spirit of the original. There's no black humour and no satire. The only bit of irony comes at the very end, far too late to save the day. I have nothing against anti-war movies (particularly in these days), but the message here is too much in-your-face. And frankly, I don't think it's right to squeeze such a message into what's nothing more than a very poor slasher. That is, a movie where most of the fun comes from watching people get killed. And how cute, unlike in real wars, no innocent civilians die here.
Overall, your average episode of STARGATE or 24 has better direction, writing and cinematography than STARSHIP TROOPERS 2. This is just both a war movie with very little action and a horror movie with zero scares. Even a low budget sci-fi/horror classic like GALAXY OF TERROR had better characters and a far more interesting story. One piece of advice from a (formerly) devoted fan. If you ever have the chance to make Starship Troopers 3, bring back Clancy Brown and Brenda Strong. And above all, use a better writer and a better director, please.
Battlestar Galactica (2003)
Not bad, but has some problems. (Minor Spoilers)
I'm one of those guys who watched the original BATTLESTAR GALACTICA when they were kids. I loved it, but now I see it had some flaws. This remake fixes some of them, but still has its own problems.
Just like the original was very much a product of the 1970's, this remake is far too influenced by the 9-11 events, and I fear it won't age very well. It tries a little to hard to be "realistic", but the semi-documentary feel actually detaches the audience from the characters and their ordeal. You hardly see civilians dying or wounded suffering, just the cold, distant view of nuclear explosions and a bunch of survivors trying to get into a rescue ship.
Granted, the Cylons were a little cheesy in the original. Turning them into man's own creation is not a bad idea, but making them look human doesn't quite work. It's hard to believe that a race that so desperately wants to look like their creators also wants to wipe them out of the universe for good. Even more unbelievable is the concept of the cylons transferring their consciousness to another body when they die. There are only 12 Cylon models. Does that mean that all Cylons of the same model share the same consciousness? Or does every one of them have a one of his/her/it own?
Human characters don't fare much better. In the original series they all felt real and shared different bonds that made you care about them just as they cared about each other. In the remake they have tried to make them flawed, but "flawed" doesn't mean the same as "real". In my opinion, Edward James Olmos gives the best performance as Adama. He comes out as a likable father figure not only to his son but to all the surviving colonists. The mother figure is far less engaging, though. Mary McDonnell seemed too absent as Laura Roslin, and I could never believe she really cared about what was going on. Besides, making her character suffer breast cancer did not help to develop her a bit. The real let down, however, are Apollo and Starbuck. Jamie Bamber is a wooden, charisma-free actor who makes Richard Hatch look like Al Pacino. Katee Sackhoff's overacting, on the other hand, is even worse. Making a female character tough and independent does not mean that she has to be arrogant, stupid and annoying. You can say what you want about Dirk Benedict, but it was impossible not to like his Starbuck, in part because of his great chemistry with Apollo. Bamber and Sackhoff share no chemistry with each other nor with the rest of the cast, period. It would have been better if the writers had kept and expanded characters like Sheba and Casiopea, instead of turning a cool male character into a hateful female one.
That said, not everything is bad. The special effects are very good, and the sci-fi approach seems more serious and less cheesy this time. I must confess I didn't really like the guy playing Baltar (Why does he have a British accent? Or at least it sounds British to me.), but I find his peculiar relationship with Number 6 rather interesting. Number 6 alone is also rather interesting (and good-looking), but there are some things about her I just find silly. It's okay that she uses her sex tricks on Baltar (after all, she is a Cylon Mata Hary), but the early scene were she kills the baby seems pointless and over-dramatic.
Overall, I think the miniseries has some potential and I hope it's fully achieved in the upcoming TV show, but they still have to improve.
Arizona Heat (1988)
Very Bad
I bet that, back in the 1980's, the makers of this film thought that pairing a veteran sexist cop (Michael Parks) with a young lesbian partner (Denise Crosby) and turning them loose in Phoenix, Arizona, to catch a cop killer was an original idea. Problem is, all the rest is so unoriginal that you can constantly foresee the nest scene. In addition, Parks makes his character awfully irritating from the very beginning. Only near the end he starts to show his softer side, but by then it is too late, since you are already wishing that he gets killed. Crosby, on the contrary, gives one of the few OK performances in her career (I wonder if that is the reason why she has played so many cops and lesbians ever since), though she is constantly harassed by Parks, who even tries to rape her when she finds out that he has slept with her girlfriend. In spite of this, she can´t help falling in love with him (!!!). Frankly, though the idea of a woman like Denise Crosby (when she was still young and beautiful) being a lesbian seems like a terrible waste to me, I think this is just a piece of misogynist trash about how a though, independent homosexual woman is tamed and brought back to heterosexuality by a sexist moron. Add to this a lame direction work, totally unexciting (and few) action sequences and the fact that anyone can tell very soon who the bad guy is. What you get is just another boring ultra-low-budget thriller not worth the 85 minutes you need to watch it.