grindleguts Reviews

Warcraft (2016)

Warcraft: At long last, re-energizing high fantasy on the big screen

[9/10 · 13 June 2016]

So needless to say, Blizzard have spent a large part of their time in gaming business as the largest game developer around even though consoles finally caught up with Call of Duty and GTA series. However there is little doubt that Blizzard has, at least historically, been THE developer for quality and story in their games. Warcraft, and in particular the hugely successful MMO World of Warcraft, might be considered a pinnacle of gaming.

So there was hardly a surprise that eventually Blizz was going to turn at least one of their franchises into a movie. And it was announced. And we waited. And we waited. And waited... Needless to say that after 10 years in development expectations have come and gone, just as World of Warcraft made its incredible legacy along the way. I went from being curious, to being very excited, to losing interest, and finally to being quite ambivalent about the project. But enough of this framework.

'Warcraft' as a movie adaption is a beautiful work of art. You find a good mix of Easter eggs around but it does not come out as a fan-service movie - comparing with 'The force awakens', Warcraft stands on its own a whole lot better. A great cast, enticing music, clever perspectives, epic battles, amazingly well in-blended CGI, magic, swords, mythical creatures and orcs. Yes, fantasy has made a return with a vengeance to the big screen and 'Warcraft' brings it back.

Star Wars: Episode VII - The Force Awakens (2015)

Predictable and unoriginal but isn't that exactly what the fans wanted?

[5/10 · 4 May 2016]

I have never been a great Star Wars fan and I honestly think I'm better off without all the hype that has surrounded the franchise in general and this movie in particular. I do like the original trilogy and I don't despise episode 1-3.

But 'The Force Awakens' to me feels like little else than a remake of the original, 1977 movie. Similar scenes, environments, characters, plot. I kind of anticipated mind-boggling special effects, especially since I saw it in IMAX (my first such, by the way), but it did little to me. The returning cast from the first movies gives this movie continuity to them, and that is a good thing. They do however come across quite questionable as 1) they are given little screen time and 2) they seem to have changed little in the 30 years supposedly gone since RotJ.

While I think the above is legitimate concerns for what makes a good movie, I sense that a lot of the choices made for 'Force awakens' is that there is so much fandom to fall back on and so many fans that will see it if it contains what they like. It's detectable. A bit in-your- face at times.

I won't call 'Force' a bad movie, it isn't, but it stumbles and most of all it feels like a predictable fan-service production. 5 out of 10.

Godzilla (2014)

Much like Pacific Rim, great icing but no content

[3/10 · 30 March 2015]

I wonder if Hollywood has decided that catering to the teen crowd is enough when producing blockbuster action movies like Godzila 2014 edition. Much like Pacific Rim this is a visually impressive film but that's also all there is. Bryan Cranston saves his career by only appearing in the decently appealing first 30 minutes or so.

Plot: well, I must say it makes the 1998 movie look really good. And that wasn't much to start with. There isn't really one.

Acting: a strong cast are given plain, boring characters to work with and I find particular fault with the Japanese researcher that has about 1.5 facial expressions throughout the film.

Filming: the CGI is excellent but poor editing and pacing ruins its prescence. There are so many tedious part in this action movie that makes you genuinely bored at times.

No really Hollywood, start realizing that if you're going to spend $160 M on a movie, also spend some on a decent script.

The Maze Runner (2014)

'The maze runner' or Divergent meets Lord of the flies and Resident Evil

[5/10 · 28 September 2014]

There's little new about 'The maze runner', and if the above summary rings a bell you get an understanding about this movie's plot.

While a decently entertaining summer movie, with plenty of eye candy and good pacing, the movie unfortunately suffers from a number of faults.

First, there's a major lack of explanations. I personally feel quite bothered when seemingly logical questions are posed or implied, but discarded right away for no obvious reason.

Second, the characters are among the most one-dimensional to grace the big screen in recent years. None are seemingly more important to the plot than others, save through chance (plot devices, if you so will).

All in all, your decent action/adventure/chosen young one movie, with all the regular flaws that come with them nowadays. 5/10

Aliens vs. Predator: Requiem (2007)

Oh the pain. Where to begin?

[1/10 · 15 February 2014]

I believe 'Aliens vs Predator 2' is the worst film I've seen in a cinema and for good reason.

The acting is bad, the lightning is bad, the story is bad, script makes no sense, it makes the first movie (by Anderson) seem like a masterpiece.

The main problem is the studio choice of going with some MTV directors and throwing in teen drama in the 'AvP' universe. Completely outlandish, uncalled for, incompatible to no end. There's no suspense and hardly any horror, only some gore (rather over the top and grotesque, I will add). Most times in the action scenes the shaky camera and darkness makes it hard to tell what's going on. Very flawed.

All in all, reusing the popular creatures and throwing in some mindless action does not make a movie and as the previous movies (even including AvP 1) all focused more on intelligent plots, suspense and horror, 'AvP 2' fails in every aspect. It's a solid 1/10.

RoboCop (2014)

Tries too hard, ends up LAME.

[3/10 · 8 February 2014]

I really want to like 'RoboCop' seeing it on the big screen, but this remake is a far cry from the original.

While it packs some nice action scenes and neat CGI, the continuity and choice of characters really derails the film.

Firstly the villains are given way too little back story and time on screen, in addition to not be nearly as brutal, cold and cynical as in the original. That was essential to the satire of Verhoeven's adaption which makes his edition great. There's a reason that Murphy's demise and resurrection in the original remains some of the most discussed scenes because of their sheer rawness and brilliant production. In 2014 we are not even close to anything like that.

The original film has a cold, industrial, unsettling feeling over it in line with Verhoeven's excellent criticism of corporate greed and exploitation of people that is central to the plot. The remake lacks all of this - very dull.

Choosing Murphy to have a male partner also destroys the neat chemistry that the female Lewis had with Murphy in the first film. Again, the remake also lacks development for his character.

The last 45 minutes or so are very unclear as to who the true villain is and Murphy's reason for his actions by then. Seemingly random events occur in a fast pace and it gets very confusing at times.

Nopes, stick with the original, 'RoboCop' of 2014 is indeed the lame PG- 13 edition that its rating tells it is.

Pacific Rim (2013)

Teenage boys will love it; you will lament the shortcomings

[4/10 · 11 August 2013]

Uuuuhh... So I had a few hours to waste with a friend while we were at a music festival, and walked into town to watch whatever was offered. 'Pacific Rim' became our choice. I like many movies by Guillermo del Toro, so it had at least some premise. Expectations were not met.

The movie is a visual roller-coaster-ride, especially in 3D as we watched it. But that is all this movie has going for it. The plot is a poorly hidden copy of 'Independence Day' but with more flaws and inconsistency; the monsters are pretty much Godzilla meets The Host and the protagonists' robots are little but oversized Transformers. Nothing new under the sun. Some scenes are pretty much taken straight out of ID4, including the grand finale, but for some reason it still falls short of the previous movie even though we have 17 years of CGI and special effects development time. This goes to show that relying on effects at the cost of acting and plot does not make a good movie.

The actors are pretty bland. Guillermo del Toro frequently casts Ron Perlman, and this movie is no exception, and his character is not surprisingly the most entertaining even though he receives few minutes of screen time. Stereotypes prevail, another nuisance to someone past their teens. You have the Russian no-nonsense team, the angry scots/brits, the Asian martial arts team and finally the all-American team (yes, admittedly the Asian girl replaces the black guy eventually, but the setting was there).

Plot holes, stupid decisions, unrealistic characters and scientific inacurracies also serve to derail this sci-fi wreck of a train: Why choose such a vulnerable control system? How can the creatures all be clones with so different appearances, sizes, abilties? How can a makeshift lab be enough to facilitate synchronization between human and alien mind? What did the monsters use to track down a single scientist in the middle of a crowd of thousands? And why was that scientist in particular targeted - if they "read his mind" as I assume they did, they would not waste time on terminating that harmless individual. Why are the characters so emotionally driven in moments which require utmost rationality and to be able to overlook personal vendettas? Why does the world government (UN?) stop funding a working defensive program (not to mention: how can money be an issue in the face of annihilation)?

So many questions, so few answers. A 4/10 for the visual thrill of the year, but if 3D and huge monsters does not work on you they will not save the experience for you either.

Yrrol - En kolossalt genomtänkt film (1994)

Forget Bergman, this is Swedish film at its finest.

[10/10 · 4 July 2013]

'Yrrol' may not have had an international target audience and limited release abroad, but it will always remain one of the native-made Swedish films closest to me. From the very first moment to the crazy credits it's a genuine giggle marathon. Through various sketches with innocent satire and playing a lot with stereotypes, the Lorry-gang (movie title obviously made by flipping their name) smoothly tells their message of what we people desire most: a feeling of being together.

Should you come across a texted version, it will be well-invested two hours of Swedish cinema humor at its peak. 10/10

Batman & Robin (1997)

What were they thinking?

[2/10 · 1 September 2012]

I think few movies are as disappointing as 'Batman & Robin' when it comes to making a sequel of a great franchise. The failures begin with the casting: George Clooney as Batman? Straight out of ER where he played a middle-aged grumpy doctor not anywhere near as prominent a character as most of the other actors there.

Arnold as a villain doesn't work either. The one time it did work was in 'T1' where his stiff acting with few lines did work out. He is too restrained and precise to make a believable villain that is supposedly mildly insane and plotting evil agendas. Uma Thurman is a bit redeeming as Poison Ivy, but that's about it. The Bane character is "straight out of a made-for-kids comic stupid" so to say. Overall the performances are quite forgettable.

And the plot is... yeah what is it about? I think I spent most of the movie trying to figure that out. Yes, I was 13 at the time it premiered but it didn't make sense then and it doesn't today. The title gives some premise: Robin gets to take some place as protagonist, but in honesty his character was also prominient in 'Batman Forever'.

Seeing Nolan's films makes a stark contrast to the 90's Batman movies, 'Batman & Robin' may be a reference but let us stop at that. 2/10.

Outlander (2008)

Decent adventure, stiff lead

[6/10 · 1 August 2012]

As much as I adore Jim caviezel in "Passion of the Christ" he does a terrible acting job here. For a B-movie, there's a bunch of good and seasoned actors such as John Hurt and Ron Perlman in addition which are all solid in their roles. Caviezel's appearance is stiff at best, in a very Steven Seagal-ish way, and almost 'non-present' at times.

Aside of that big flaw with the film, it's a quite entertaining old-times sword wielding action flick with a decent monster, interwoven with some sci-fi elements. Scenery is nice. details pretty good and the (altough thin) story does its job, your average weekend action movie so to speak. 6/10.

Kiss Meets the Phantom of the Park (1978 TV Movie)

"Incredibad" sums it up, but...

[3/10 · 13 May 2012]

'KISS meets the Phantom of the Park' is little more than a kids movie that once was part of advertising the band to an even wider audience. At the time the rock legends were quite few in including pyrotechnics, mask painting in their shows so whoever came up with the idea of a movie probably relied a bit too much on their stage appearance to make a worthwhile film.

The biggest problem with watching this movie present day are all the clichés and utter silliness this movie packs. Due to the nature of being a Hanna-Barbera production there are simplified relations, overstatements, put-in-place language and just a lack of continuity that kids movies often can get away with. If you're a fan of the band it's probably something you'd want to watch once in your lifetime, and perhaps for fans of bad movies (yes, they do exist). For anyone looking at a decent movie featuring KISS, it will do little to nothing for you.

Mortal Kombat (1995)

Surprisingly good film adaption

[7/10 · 8 April 2012]

Paul W.S Anderson may be most remembered for his "Magnum Opus" of Resident Evil (1) but long before he lay down the line with Mortal Kombat, another video game adaption. His skills as a director may be questionable but I believes he does a fairly good job with "Mortal Kombat" given its poor premise, much like Street Fighter, that being based off a fighting game with supernatural characters. Christopher Lambert is a good choice for Rayden, and Liu Kang, Shang Tsung and Johnny Cage all get actors doing them justice. Featuring some nice scenery, memorable music and of course lots of martial arts fighting, it was a wet dream on screen for me and friends back in the mid 90's. The following movies derailed a lot and came to rely much CGI which this first movie is fortunately not graced with. Recommended to watch once, if you don't mind some cliché dialogue and over-abundance of fighting, probably nothing you'll want to watch again. 6/10

Aliens (1986)

Aliens - defining sci-fi and action movies

[10/10 · 27 March 2012]

Simply put, Aliens after 26 years keeps standing out as THE sci-fi film, THE action film with a nice portion of horror. Instead of simply getting a sequel to the astonishing first film, Aliens goes from slow-paced horror to a slow build up to war. Sigourney Weaver is the perfect heroine, and does not become stereotypical. The supporting characters fit in, are unique, original (for its time), believable and overall very enjoyable. CGI movies of later years still have nothing on Aliens. Carefully planned details are everywhere. It's a must see for anyone enjoying movies, even if the genre isn't usually your cup of tea. There's simply too much good content to pass.

Avatar (2009)

Stunning visuals in 3D but stumbles with script

[7/10 · 27 March 2012]

I'll happily agree that 'Avatar' is a stunning film on the big screen - it's colorful, features beautiful environments, varied shots, awesome camera-work, brought back 3D and the soundtrack blends in great.

But there are a few caveats to the film: 1) The characters. With exception of Sigourney Weaver and Sam Worthington's roles, the characters feel too stereotypical and quite unrealistic at times. The "villain" probably to the greatest extent, there is little to no depth to him at all. The Na'vi characters are no better, they feel interchangeable and could have been copy-pasted straight out of Lion King.

2) The plot. Way too simplistic and features too good to be true solutions as well as very poor decisions by the characters. It's hardly original either, 'Pocahontas' springs to mind on more than one occasion. Some twists to the story feel very forced and are not explained enough to make sense (i.e. Weaver's character's death).

3) The overall 'kids movie' feel. We have seen this one before.

I still consider the movie worthy of a 7 as it is sort of a milestone all in all, but unless you're in your late preteens to early teens you will probably do well to watch Avatar once and final.

Alien 3 (1992)

Production chaos made lacking theatric, redeemed on disc

[7/10 · 20 March 2012]

"Alien 3" became David Fincher's debut on the big screen, which definitely opened the door for him to direct stellar movies like "Se7en" and more. When you take the production with constant changes, delays and conflicts into mind it is not surprising the result becomes uneven. After the masterpieces of the first and second movies one cannot help but look at the theatrical cut as unfinished, thin and something that could have been so much more. (It is redeemed with the later re-releases).

I still don't view "Alien 3" as a bad film, the plot has a point, the actors do well given the time they are given on screen, Weaver gives a great performance as always and the real enemy is present - the Company. Sadly enough key characters are killed off in a quick, bad manner which makes the remaining ones blur together.

Overall the ending makes for a fitting conclusion for the series overall, the circus of the 4th film should be considered stand-alone. Some people described the end as a loss, to me it's a win, the real enemy is defeated (the company rather than the creature) which gives the movie a redeeming factor. 7/10