10 ReviewsOrdered By: Date
Boring, dumb and glazed with typical patriotic US army BS.
20 May 2011
If you watch the trailers, at least as a sci-fi fan, you hope you have something to look forward to. But deep in your soul you already know... this can't be good. But you still give it a shot. As you always do. I was not surprised that BLA is bad. I was surprised it's that utterly brainless and uncreative. Why the studios spend millions and millions on movies based on crappy scripts like this is beyond me. Well I just saw the movie still made decent money worldwide... but why don't they have the ambition to make an invasion movie that excites and appeals to all the fans for years and years to come. Instead BLA is yet another empty entry in a long row of forgettable and lazy genre features that will only be appreciated for no more than 2 hrs by low-flick-standard-buffs and kids.

What is really annoying about this movie are the constant in-your-face-marine-US-army-stars-and-stripes-donkey-crap scenes that are so stuffed of painful clichés that you feel ashamed for getting goose bumps by the manipulative (and of course uninspired) soundtrack.

Needless to say this movie offers just cardboard characters, go-go-go marine dialogs and an incredibly flat story including a ridiculous twist in the end.

This is basically 'war of the worlds' minus character-development plus combat scene copies from 'black hawk down'.
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Interesting enough but rather watch 'Lovesong for Bobby Long'.. same same but better
23 August 2010
Warning: Spoilers
This movie is a kinda nice story but we have seen the weird homecoming scenario in much better mood-splashes than this. In my opinion Harris is misscast as the old suicide papa. He just still seems to fit of a man that he can pull of the broken old oak like he was supposed to. I didn't believe him. The characters in this movie feel much too passive and just react to the constant downward beats they get hit by day in and day out. It's depressing and the hope in the end feels artificial. I think the movie fails mostly because its lead character is not likable enough to feel her pain. She kills a cat by drowning it?? Who does that? Could she not find a less cruel way? She lost me right there and didn't recover and I bet most of the audience feels the same way. Whether they know it or not. Still the movie delivers some moody moments which are enjoyable and all together it is interesting enough to make you want to see where it goes. So it's not a terrible movie. If it weren't so clichéd it would be above mediocre, but a self-loathing, ex-bestseller writer-genius, a dead suicide-mother, a weird, semi-retarded wannabe musician, a beautiful, ex-grad orphan and zooey deschanel as an actress/cocaine addict/nut-case/lost daughter-mixture - all living (or not) in one house is just too perfect of a mess. Another example of sometimes less is more...

But in the end it's all a matter of taste. Like wasabi.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Daybreakers (2009)
Great ideas and actors sadly seem forced into a distant B/noir schlock fest.
15 August 2010
I wish they would have kept it fittingly dark, serious and character driven. It rather plays out more and more into an uneven, directionless splat-prat. In the end I laughed. Not in a good way.

The SFX props/Makeup are made by WETA and look very good, BUT the CGIs look awfully terrible. Again and unfortunate mixture. The directors made CGI themselves, which is either their big mistake or was caused by a budget safety brake. I don't know. But needless to say, it doesn't help.

Still it is worth watching for genre fans because it definitely is a forerunner for better... or worse movies made out of this truly fascinating premise.

5 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Green Zone (2010)
"Jarhead" gets bourned. I like.
15 August 2010
I know this movie is not very intelligent. But I also think it doesn't want to be. It's just a war thriller with a certain facts and fiction mixture that does not hurt anyone. And if you see it as that, it's very exciting, I think.

Maybe it's also because I generally like this sub-genre. I liked "The Kingdom", "Syriana", "Jarhead", of course "Three Kings" and even "Rendition". I do not compare these movies but I just like the American comments on this oily matter. Even if they are often clichéd and wannabe critical. Its simply the POV of an American I find interesting. (I am German by the way, and not in love with the USA) Do not forget that you will not get a real view of these war zones if an American does this. It will always be the American view unless you have an Iraqi director/writer make his film, which won't be more objective. For that one should watch the countless documentaries and make up his mind.

"Green Zone" is just a thriller after all. Not every movie made about an area of conflict wants to wake people up or say something intelligent. And a movie is not stupid just because it does not show us anything we didn't know before. And if you tell me that "Green Zone" is stupid or wrong on any other matter, I am all yours.

1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Clash of the Idiots. There is not enough popcorn in the world to make this movie worth seeing.
15 August 2010
Apart from some very few low-enjoyable moments this is just a ridiculous and very dumb movie. Why Neeson and Fiennes needed that money baffles me. Are they not afraid of the reviews and fear for their careers? The stink of this laughable script must have reached their distinctive noses when they read it and they just held their breath and took the check.

Good for them this is a movie that will be very forgotten, very soon. It's luckily not bad enough to be a scandal.

I wish they would come up with better writers for fantasy material like this. It's not like one could not make a good entertainer out of this simple idea of Greek mythology. That's why I saw it in the first place.

For what it's worth this movie is still harmless and some kids will enjoy the action and mediocre SFX. I do not give horrible zero ratings unless the movie is pure agony or a disgrace in any way.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Valentine's Day (I) (2010)
An idiotic, lame cliché of a movie. This is impossible to enjoy, no matter how hard you try.
15 August 2010
An idiotic, lame cliché of a movie. This is impossible to enjoy, no matter how hard you try.

How so many people (actors, producers, writers, directors etc etc) can sit at a table and all say "ok let's do this", I cannot grasp with all my wild imagination.

Only recommendable to kids who still play with dolls. (Shut up, they know more about sex these days than we all did, when we actually had first sex.)

In the end it's all a matter of taste.

In the end it's all a matter of taste.

2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
A lot of good things in an ultimately underdeveloped entertainer.
15 August 2010
Warning: Spoilers
It's beautifully shot and has a great cast that delivers cool and fitting performances. Action scenes are entertaining and feel as dirty and gritty as they are supposed to.

BUT the story is kinda ridiculous and dumb. A guy tries to bring the bible to someplace special to save Christianity after a post-apocalyptic nightmare? And god guides him, strengthens him etc?? I am a Christian but this is just weird and didn't strike me as a thoughtful religious aspect in a blockbuster movie. It just felt overly constructed. I think it would have been better if they just didn't say it out loud and kept the character more mysterious all the way.

And of course like in almost all big budget movies, the bad guys are so damn clichéd that you see every move coming as if you wrote the script yourself. That makes Gary Oldman look not to good in this. Sadly. Since he has the stuff for a bad guy that really haunts you (re: The Professional).

I wasn't bored, but I only recommend it on DVD to people who watch everything big anyway.

1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Inception (2010)
Masterpieces do not have constant exposition dialogs and dumb action scenes on skis!
14 August 2010
Warning: Spoilers
Wow. What I read here is really crazy. People talk about INCEPTION as if it invented film all over again.

Only few, more down-to-earth reviewers here see this movie as what it really is. An entertaining blockbuster.

I don't want to talk about the good things in this movie cause they are obviously more obvious than the bad things. And you will find these in the countless positive reviews. Don't get me wrong. I liked it (7/10 rating from me), I just didn't love it as much as most of the internet seemingly does.

People say this movie is so complex and amazingly scripted etc. That's just not true. At least not in relation to the amok running hype! Don't confuse complex with complicated! Inception is "just" complicated with all its levels and kicks. It's a complicated universe which needs a lot of explaining (which is done in a hell of a lot dialogs merely there to talk to the audience directly rather than developing the characters, who are actually saying the words. For screenwriters in most cases this would be considered bad writing!). Once understood, these wild explanations, which neglect reason in more than many cases, somehow seem to strike people as 'complex'. --The 'wow-effect' takes over, intelligent entertainment is seen and the best thing is, I totally get it.-- Amazing? No. Complex is a movie like "12 angry men", 12 wildly different characters sitting in one room, unpredictably interacting with each other all at once. Or a movie like "Heat", where the emotionally torn good and evil parts meet in a grey zone, where moral is not the answer to everything. 'Complex' rather describes the depth of character and haunting situation they are in, than the outer machinery, the mere workflow of the universe they encounter (like in Inception). The characters in inception are totally one dimensional, almost clichéd and driven by typical, standard motivations. Which is not necessarily bad, but just not very complex! Take away the sci-fi mechanism of the dream worlds and you are left with a pretty standard heist movie with fabulous SFX and one or two nice but predictable twists. And yes an open ending 'that totally stuck with me for days'... NOT.

Mediocre characters, silly/unmotivated shoot-outs (the ski scene fell right out of a James Bond movie) and, considering the self-seriousness, often unbelievable, ridiculous details. I have to say that I expected more, I expected that very complexity I just described. More depth in character would have been better than the endless depth of dreams. At least for my taste.

Still I saw a very good, refreshing, original blockbuster. So this movie is no disastrous disappointment. And I recommend it with a lot of popcorn. I am only disappointed that a movie like this is hailed as a modern masterpiece. I find that a ridiculous statement - but maybe the audiences have been so numbed by the brainless remake-, sequel and franchise-blockbustery in the past years that they mistake this good film as the one that will change filmmaking forever and pave the way into an era of semi-intelligent cinema. Camelsh**. For those who don't know it: intelligent cinema does exist already. You just may not find it among titles that cost 160 mil to make and have that 25 percent shoot-out and fight scenes people's eyes seemingly need to stay focused to the screen.

Anyway we all agree, I guess, in hoping that the big studios take Inception as a good example, showcasing high budget productions should take more risks in creating and producing undigested, original material. And for that, granted, Inception may go down as a landmark after all.

Considering that, the box office needs your vote. So go see it.
5 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Cop Out (2010)
as if Willis and smith can't read.
14 August 2010
considering the talent involved this feels like they didn't bother to read the script before they started shooting. this is a really, really bad script. the leads are mildly entertaining but they would have been more fun just standing in front of a curtain talking for 2 hrs.

i guess this was one for the paid check for smith.. but the Morgan and Willis? take the blood away and you have a story so dumbed down it would be suitable for a special sponge bob crime episode.

how scripts like these get made into movies is beyond me. can someone explain? seriously.

the soundtrack is keyboard retro 80s and just reminds viewers that this could be a lame attempt to say hello to much better and funnier movies like Beverly hills cop and the like.

I just read that smith also edited this. Well I guess you could not save this mess in the post production.
42 out of 78 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Feast (2005)
If you're not a fan of silly splatter jokes, skip this one...
18 May 2009
Warning: Spoilers
The premise is lame, the follow up is lame and the end is... guess what... it's lame. BUT it still is a good effort and it still shows good film-making here and there. For the fans of gory monster action this one is for the ages. It all plays out in pretty much one location, which is totally fine and considering the 1 mil budget they had plays out rather well. It's straight forward and keeps you looking at either funny or simply disgusting body-explosions. When you're into it you'll enjoy it, if you're not it'll just bore the crap out of you.

The characters are just there and won't need much compassion from the audience cause in this flick it really doesn't matter at all. The story is mostly not there. The story is just the premise and that's the end of it. A couple of muppet monsters attack a bunch of random people in a bar. It won't explain why, and it's probably better that way. I don't mind it being that simple and single laned but it's just not very entertaining. I need those characters I like and I need at least some bits of story to follow a flick of this caliber. It's supposed to be easy entertainment... and it just fails in my opinion because it is a little tooooo easy for my taste. But I'm not the kind of guy to see a movie just to watch people die in a funny way. If you're not too there's not much to love here.

For Horror Fans in general, I'd still recommend a fast forward look cause of its low budget, single location premise which is well executed.

2 out of 10 because it sucks ass but still has some minor good points to it. And two very beautiful actresses :)
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this