Reviews

9 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
The Crow (1994)
8/10
Better than what it could have been
19 January 2014
The nineties. Not the best decade for comic book adaptations. Richard Donners Superman did well in the seventies and Tim Burtons Batman got the tone for the Dark Knight right near the end of the eighties. This could have been what made the studios see the potential for big bucks in turning stories of the sequential art into something a little bit more cinematic back then. Not many comic book movies made this era turned out well though. This movie however was an exception. While many other movies made this era only (or mostly) survived by being so bad that they were good, this one respected the story and tone of the work it was based on and met success. Though possibly not only for its quality, something I'll get to later.

The story: Rock musician Eric Draven (Brandon Lee) and his fiancée Shelly Webster (Sofia Shinas) gets attacked and killed by a gang on a dark October night. One year later Eric rises from his grave, now undead and guided by a mysterious crow. He remembers what happened one year ago, on that fateful night, and the faces of his murderers and starts to take his revenge on them one by one until he reaches the top of the lowlifes, their boss, Top Dollar (brilliantly played by Michael Wincott).

This was Brandon Lee's last movie. During filming a gun that had not been properly prepared was fired at him and what was intended to be an ordinary, fictional death scene turned out be a quite real one. Still, after a while, the movie was finished with a few rewrites and a few scenes recorded with Brandons face digitally placed on a body double.

There has been some changes to the original story from the comic book, but they are small (and in some cases an improvement).The overall tone is kept and the movie respects the material on which it is based. It dares to be dark in a decade where most comic book movies at their darkest were like Batman Forever. It's not just dark "because it's cool", but because it fits the story and theme. A darkness that knows the right time to step aside and let some humanity seep in.

In retrospect the story is very simple, the bad guys does not seem like more than a bunch of two-dimensional troublemakers who likes to cause mayhem for the sake of mayhem and at it's core it's an ordinary revenge story (with a bit of supernatural thrown in). But it's a little bit more than that. In the hands of someone else it could have been just another revenge-movie and nothing (or not much) more. But thankfully the writers David J Schow and John Shirley, the director Alex Proyas and Brandon Lee gave it that little extra. It's not just about revenge but also about losing and finding one's way and finding glimmers of light in the darkness. Michael Wincott's performance as Top Dollar should not go unmentioned either as it is very memorable. There is a little extra depth to his character with his doubts, thoughts about death and a scene where he monologues about how he, over the years, has lost a little bit of passion for his work. Brandon Lee does a good job at balancing between being consumed by revenge but at the same time trying to hold on to his humanity. A minor complaint about the movie would be that one of the characters at one point becomes a damsel in distress. something typical that we've seen before and something the movie, up to that point, managed to avoid. But like I said, it's a minor complaint and the actress playing her is good.

One can not help to wonder if this movie could have been just as successful (or at least have a similar success) without the death of the main star. I like to think that it could. Because there's more to it than what it could have been, had it not been made by someone who knew how to give it that little extra.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
So bad it sucks
8 September 2013
This movie was on TV once so I decided to watch it since I wouldn't have to pay any money for it.

The main character Will (played by Matt Lanter) has a dream where he meets a stone age Amy Winehouse (I think it's supposed to be a joke) who tells him that the world is going to end the day this movie premiered in the cinema (Coincidence?) and to stop it they must find a crystal skull. Matt later wakes up to celebrate his super-sweet sixteenth birthday (despite him being in his twenties) in a scene where we get one unfunny joke and celebrity impersonation after another. Then disaster strikes (it seems kinda redundant though since this movie already is one), hurricanes, earthquakes, meteorites and other classic disaster movie ingredients hit planet earth one after another. Will, followed by his friends: Juney (Crista Flanagan), Calvin (Gary "G Thang" Johnson), and Lisa (Kim Kardashian) go out into the city and tries to find his girlfriend and a safe place and later realizes that he has to find the crystal skull to set things right.

The problem with this movie is, just like other movies by Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer, that it doesn't stay on the theme but goes all over the place and try to spoof almost every popular movie that was made that year. And I use the term "spoof" lightly. Once again "Seltzerberger" show that they only grasp the most superficial concept of what humor is and never really bother to dig deeper and see what it is that makes things funny. Sometimes doing things outside the theme can work but not if it takes up a majority of the movie. And (for me) this movie is worse than Epic Movie. Yes you read right, Worse than Epic Movie. That movie at least had a story. Sure it was borrowed and "crapified" but at least it was a story. In this movie, everything that happens during the second act, when they try to find a safe place/figure out where they should go, just feels like a filler where the gang stumble into one reference after another. "Seltzerberger's" over-reliance on potty humor, movie/TV references, random musical numbers, deliberately obvious stunt-doubles and crappy special effects does not save them this time.

Seltzer and Friedberg, your movie sucks horribly. If I may paraphrase a line from "Billy Madison" I'd like to say: I award you only one star, and may God have mercy on your souls.

Once again, if you want to see a GOOD movie made in the style that this train wreck was trying (and failing) to emulate, watch "Hotshots" "Airplane!", "The naked gun" movies, "Top Secret" instead.
22 out of 27 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Epic Movie (2007)
1/10
I have a weak spot for spoof movies and this spoof movie is weak.
12 August 2012
We follow four orphans from their own different parts of the world as they all come together to be part of a so called "Epic adventure".

There's Lucy (Jayma Mays) who's adopted father (David Carradine) has just been killed by a mysterious murderer in (what I think is) the Louvre. Edward (Kal Penn) who has just been thrown out of the monastery, where he's lived all his life, after insulting the cooking skills of the monks. Susan (Faun Chambers)who, on her way to Namibia to meet her adopted parents (Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie), get's thrown out of a plane. And Peter(Adam Campbell), a mutant who goes to a Mutantschool and gets picked on by the other mutants for having comically small wings on his back. They all get hold of four "Golden tickets" that gives them a guided tour of an eccentric billionaire's whimsical candy factory. In the factory Lucy finds a magic wardrobe that leads to an enchanted fantasy land called "Gnarnia" (for legal purposes), and so the "epic" adventure begins.

Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer are two lazy writers who must have seen many Zucker movies but never bothered to stop and think about what it is that make people like these movies or what actually makes them funny. Their formula for humor seem to be that bad special effects, obvious stunt doubles, randomly thrown in hip-hop/musical numbers, low brow potty humor and movie references are by themselves always hilarious no matter what the circumstances are. A few jokes made me chuckle but it's not enough to save this train wreck. It would had been better if they had settled on a main theme like "fantasy" and limited it to: The Chronicles of Narnia, Harry potter and the Lord of the rings movies. That, plus a story that is not dependent on the Friedberg and Seltzer formula of "humor".

This is a very bad movie. If you want a good spoof movie, see the "Hotshots" movies, "Airplane!", "The naked gun" movies, "Top Secret" or any movie not made by the two hacks that made this "Comedy".
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Avatar (2009)
6/10
Something old, something new, something borrowed, something blue
5 January 2010
Jake Sully (Sam Worthington), a paraplegic, former marine becomes a last minute replacement for his dead twin brother on a mission to the inhabited faraway moon known as Pandora. His mission is to, through a remote controlled, genetically grown body known as an "Avatar", explore this new world and find a MacGuffin called "unobtainium", a rare and valuable material in the future, kind of like gold or oil in todays world. Of course after having been wheelchair bound for several years he really loves waking up in a new body with legs that work and allows him to run for the first time in years. However, all is not sunshine and lollipops on Pandora as we and Jake soon find out. The reason one would need an Avatar-body is because the air on Pandora is not friendly to earth lungs. Neither is most of the plant life, animal life or the ten foot tall, blue skinned, feline natives called Na'vi. One of the characters describe the place as being worse than hell. On his first mission, Jake gets separated from the group, gets lost and gets rescued by a female Na'vi called Neytiri(Zoe Saldana). She brings him to her tribe where he learns about the Na'vi, their customs, culture and their relationship to nature.

Now. Why do I in the title to my review compare this movie to a wedding dress? Maybe I want my review to stick out a little bit, because there is not much I can say about it that hasn't already been said. Kinda like the movie itself. The thing that is old and borrowed is the story. It's "Pocahontas, Ferngully and the last samurai- In Space!" with impressive CGI. The old "person comes to a new world, meets native from new world, is introduced to it's culture, falls in love with world and native and wants to stop his own world from taking over and exploiting new world"-thing. What's new is the the way that it's told. This is one of the few times where earth is invading a new planet instead of being invaded. The concept of an avatar: moving your mind to a body meant to be remote controlled is interesting and quite new (sure, "Surrogates"(2009) came out before this, but to my knowledge James Cameron came up with the idea before "Surrogates" was written). The blue thing: The Na'vis of course! (Heheh!)

The main appeal about this movie is the CGI and the 3D, since, like I said earlier, the story is something we've seen before. While that is not directly a bad thing, originality is always appreciated. At first I wasn't gonna watch this in 3D but I thought that since I've never done anything like this before I'll try it just this once... it was pretty cool. A movie shouldn't have to rely on cool technology though. This movie is basically about showing the latest in movie technology. The story is till good, just a little unoriginal. The CGI-motion-capture is not that new (I'm looking at you Robert Zemeckis!) but it is done very well. The movements and facial expressions of the Na'vis really made them seem alive, like Gollum in "Lord of the rings".

I'm writing this a few days after I saw the movie, so hindsight has affected my view of it slightly. So how did I feel when watching this shameless display of the latest achievements in cinematic entertainment technology? Did I like this movie? Was I entertained? Would I recommend it to others? Yes, yes and yes. Do you have to watch it in 3D? No. Sure, it's cool but not necessary.

I see you... reading this review!
0 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Pure Jim Henson
25 May 2009
In another world, another time there was a planet inhabited by strange creatures that was slowly getting closer to it's doom. A race of evil, vulture-like creatures known as the Skeksis were in possession of a large, magic crystal that was broken apart 1000 years ago. One tiny little piece of it is missing, it's hidingplace unknown. The time is coming closer to something known as "The great conjunction", something that, in the hands of the skeksis could destroy the world or in the hands of the good give it new life and save it. It's up to Jen, a gelfling who's race was killed many years ago by the skeksis, to find the missing piece an heal the Dark crystal in time for the great conjunction to save the world from being overtaken by the skeksis.

This movie is a fantasy movie, but what really makes it stand out is that there are no humans in sight, it's all done with puppets. When I say that this is "pure Jim Henson" I mean it both in a good and a bad way. It has all his brilliance and all his flaws. As an example: one of the skeksis is a little hard to find threatening as he repeatedly makes a highpitched "mmm" sound, and most of the other skeksis are afraid of, and run away from a gelfling when they see one. Jim Henson is mostly concerned with the visual aspect, making sure that the angles are good, the performance makes the puppet come alive and that the puppeteer is invisible. The character doesn't change much during his journey and it's subplot doesn't develop much. But enough criticism, on to the good stuff. I mentioned that Henson is mostly visual and the visual stuff is far from bad, there are moments when I wonder: "Wow, how did they do that? How did they get that creature to move that way? How did they get an actor to move around in that?". There are scenes when the gelflings lack of facial movement makes them look like just puppets and there are scenes when what little facial expression they have make them seem very much alive. Like I mentioned earlier there are things that aren't threatening about some of the antagonists (like the mmm-ing skeksi) but most of it turn into unexpected humour that makes it stand out and be memorable. It doesn't have the tone one would usually expect from a puppet movie (then again, they don't make many puppet movies so what WOULD one expect?). All in all, the good outweighs the bad. This is a good and interesting movie. Jim Henson dared to make something new, rare and original and you gotta respect all the work he put in it. His job was to bring puppets to life, and he was really good at it.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Borat (2006)
5/10
It's strength is also its weakness
27 November 2007
Jak sie masz! My name a 81Sorp! Well, not really, but let's not sweat the details.

Borat, a reporter from "Kazakhstan" travels to the U.S and A to learn about the great country in the west and hopefully learn how to deal with his own country's problems who he himself says are: "social, economical and jew". In the U.S and A he sees a TV show called "Baywatch", falls in love with the voluptuous Pamela Anderson Lee and descides to travel all over the U.S and A to meet her and her very appealing bosom. On the road to his dream girl many cultural misunderstandings ensues.

This "Documentary" has some funny moments and some half funny moments that are OK. If you've seen Sacha Baron Cohen's earlier work it's the same old stuff he has done before: interview people who don't know it's a joke and get confused and/or angered. It's built on a lot of improvisation from Cohen's part which has its good and bad sides. The good is that it's spontaneous reaction from his interview victims and the funny misunderstandings from these people who think it's for real. The bad is that more than a few improv-jokes become very lowbrow and potty-oriented. Many times it relies on shock, testing the boundaries and obscenity to create laughs, like nudity and aforementioned potty humor. Maybe it's just me but I grew up with and expected a slightly more clever British humor than this. However, all in all it's not all bad. Half the humor comes from his interview victims who fit the picture of the conservative American, out of touch with the rest of the world. THIS was was more of the cleverness that I had expected and wish there had been more of.

Cohen could have toned down Borats acted craziness and given more room to these peoples real craziness.

That's all from me. Now if you excuse me, I have to go and milk my goats.

Dziekuje!
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Nacho Libre (2006)
5/10
An OK wrestling flick with Jack Black
24 June 2007
Jack Black plays a monk in Mexiko with dreams of making it big in the world of Mexican masked wrestling.

Now, Jack Black as a Mexican didn't bother me that much. It was even explained at one point in the movie. (his mother was a Scandinavian missionary) So it's not like they pretend that he doesn't have the ethnicity.

The story is a wee bit thin though, the writers probably decided to lean on the impulses of Black. Don't get me wrong, the first half of the movie has several good moments but after that the story get thin and sometimes predictable, a little more work on the story would have been in order. The writers probably wanted to avoid any form of already used "Rocky-like" movie formula, but maybe a little bit of formula would have helped. Having things constantly going against them may be funny for a while but it leaves you wondering how they are ever gonna reach their goal. A little transformation of the character would have been nice.

Jack Black delivers the usual Jack Black stuff, including some scenes with his trademark singing. Héctor Jiménez, not as much as acts as just has fun with his role, does a good job playing the homeless Esqueleto. Don't expect the comedy of the year, if all you are looking for is a Jack Black movie, look no further.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Spider-Man 3 (2007)
5/10
A step down, but not that bad
9 May 2007
In the third installment of the Spider-Man franchise our favorite web swinger has to tackle his old friend Harry Osborn turned super villain, Flint Marko, a thug turned into a sandy super villain and Eddie Brock, a photographer with low morale who later turns into something worse. And let's not forget fighting inner demons caused by a living costume/goo from outer space.

Sure, it could be better, but it could also be worse. The problem as I see it, is too many story lines. Besides the ones already mentioned there's the MJ story and the Gwen Stacy story. While some of the subplots were given time to grow, others weren't. It felt like they were thrown into a space too small for them to grow in the pace they needed. Guess Raimi got a little too eager in the big candy shop that is the Spider-Man-universe, and I can't blame him.

On the plus side: the action scenes are very good and Thomas Hayden Church's portrayal of an ordinary man with bad luck, turned thug, turned super villain is good, memorable and makes you feels sympathy for the poor guy. Agreed, it's not as good as Spider-Man 2, but not bad either. It's good enough to watch more than a couple of times.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Mousehunt (1997)
8/10
Modern, classic, fun slapstick
25 January 2007
So... this is my first review and I've chosen this movie, lets start!

When I first heard about this film I thought of it as a Home alone-clone. Years later I saw it on TV and saw what it was really about.

Yes, it reminds you about Home alone, but in a good way. Most Home alone-clones have thin plot, very little motivation, rushes to and focuses too much on the villain-getting-hurt-part. This one focuses just enough, and in the old classical way that reminds you of Harry Lloyd, Charlie Chaplin and Laurel & Hardy.

Two brothers in need of money have inherited an old house worth millions. As they start fixing it up they realize it is inhabited by a mouse not willing to give it up, and so the battle for the house begins.

Hilarious movie, everything is perfectly balanced and Nathan Lane and Lee Evans both delivers some golden moments. Maybe not for all ages, but certainly for people who appreciate good classical slapstick.

You can now go back to what it was you were doing
4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed