Reviews written by registered user
cjhaacke

Send an IMDb private message to this author or view their message board profile.

5 reviews in total 
Index | Alphabetical | Chronological | Useful

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
shiny, 16 April 2006
4/10

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I went in remembering Milla Jovovich in Resident Evil Apocalypse; looked good while doing decent action.

Well, at least Ultraviolet gave that much.

Just not much else.

The special effects made the movie look artificial and stylized, when most movies try to make their special effects seem invisible; either this was intentional, or they really had shoddy special effects. The movie, from music to lines, was emotional with all the subtlety of a crowbar to the back of the head, and some of the dialog made me actually wince, especially the lead actress's last line.

Its strong points were the action and actors, though. Milla Jovovich did not disappoint; she looked good in decent action, even if her character's ability to slaughter dozens upon dozens of soldiers with minimal damage on her own part was excessive. Penetrate a building "impossible to penetrate" with only a few scratches? Still, I'll accept a lot for Milla Jovovich. Ever since "Tears of the Sun" and "Chronicles of Riddick", I have really liked Nick Chinlund, and his acting was good in this one.

Don't go expecting great film-making, and the visual style and over-dramatization are excessive, but it is pretty, shinny, and the heroine kills hundreds with cool weapons. I might have wanted more, but given I saw the movie for $4 Canadian...well, still. But it entertained.

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
oh well..., 6 April 2006
4/10

I was completely jazzed to track down the third Patlabor movie; the first two are among my favorites.

The third lacked that certain something...namely the main characters from the first two, reduced to minor supporting roles at best. We don't see the progression of the characters like we did between 1 and 2, which, to be honest, was part of what I was looking forward to seeing in the third. They showed up, a little; I found it funny when Captain Goto, in a meeting, asked why he was there. I had to laugh, because I was asking the same question, as he seemed to me to be in the scene just so people knew it was Patlabour 3. If Section 2 didn't show up in some form, even a few scenes, people would not have been able to tell. So they did. In a few scenes.

I was disappointed.

3 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
could have been better...cool but could have been better., 24 November 2005
7/10

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I liked this movie for the action, the special effects, and for Riddick; it was good, not great. It wasn't great because it tried for "high sci-fi" when it didn't need to; the Necromongers were excessive. The gritty, hard-edged, more realistic style of the prison, the mercs, it worked, but clashed with the overly stylized, almost "high fantasy" Necros. Like two different movies, grafted together and not that well. Riddick worked well in the one world, but seemed out of place in the second; similarly, he worked well as the murderer, the criminal, the survivor; as a mystical Messiah and fated warrior...not so much.

The movie should have stuck with the dark, gritty world and left the pretensions of high science fiction to Buck Rodgers., not Richard B. Riddick. Nonetheless, I liked the character of Riddick that I followed it where the story took him; Riddick is just cool, and whatever he did, I accepted because he was Riddick, too damn intense to kill and more lethal than should be possible. Vin Diesel does him well, and shouldn't have tied to elevate Riddick to the mythic hero type. Riddick is no Luke Skywalker; might have stuck a shiv in the pretty boy, then looked at the lightsabre and said "nice toy.", but not become him.

Doom (2005)
0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
oh well...., 25 October 2005
3/10

For what it is worth, I did like Dwayne "the rock" Johnson's acting, although I have to ask; is it in his contracts that each movie he is in have a pro wrestling-type fight? I also like Karl Urban, and Rosamund Pike. Being a fan of Doom 3, I loved it when "Pinky" showed up.

Those are, collectively, the movie's high points.

As I said, I am a fan of Doom 3. Sadly, the game had more atmosphere, more plot, than the movie. More shooting of arguably well-done demons than a few zombies and genetic mutants; "genetic mutants"? This was supposed to be DOOM! As in, monsters from Hell loosed though a portal, not created by a virus or "24th. strand of DNA". Often, it felt like Reaper spent more time fighting humans than monsters.

I had been looking forward to the move for months; was excited making my way to the theater, watching the previews roll. But once the visceral thrill of gunfire faded, I felt kind of robbed. "Zombification by way of blood/virus/etc." had been done (to death?), better, from Romero to Resident Evil, which I liked, by the way. Doom lacked a certain "scope"; there should have been more Hellknights, more Imps, more non-zombies. Hell itself. "Starship Troopers", at least filled the screen with its monsters, and, sadly, had only slightly less plot.

Also, in one final bit of annoyance; what kind of "elite soldier" would have been stupid enough to WANDER OFF, in a ZOMBIE-INFESTED COMPLEX to GO TO THE BATHROOM, and ALONE?!?!

Oh well; at least, unlike in Doom 3, they had flashlights on their guns.

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Arrgh...my eyes hurt..., 9 May 2005
3/10

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Well, martial-arts trained "Fireflies" WAS cute...

I will give the movie that much.

It had its "cute" moments, but Vin Diesel seemed like he was doing a primitive parody of a soldier, which was, at times, funny. I tend to like his acting. really. In "Chronicles of Riddick". "Pitch Black". But in this movie, he tried beyond his range; "touchy-feely" is beyond him. It is just not convincing from Vin Diesel. I felt sorry for Lauren Graham; she just seemed so out of place to me, and her character's "romance" with the lead was, it seemed, just suggested and its development implied.

A big saving grace was Lulu (Morgan York); she was utterly adorable, and seemed a decent actress out of proportion to her age. Of course, being cute, she DID get a somewhat disproportionate amount of screen time. Speaking of which, the oldest boy was ANNOYING! Surly/sulky to best friend/happy in record time? Impressive. Not.

As for plot, well, there WAS one, and pretty simply laid out and predictable. The minute I saw the commanding officer, I KNEW he was actually the villain. I assume the plot was aimed at 5 year olds. As I am NOT a 5 year old, maybe I should not have seen the movie, and as a 28 year old, might not have credibility reviewing it.

When I spend a decent part of a movie with fingers in ears, thinking happy thoughts and fully intending to watch "The Chronicles of Riddick" as soon as possible to make the pain go, it gets a 3 out of 10. Again, some "cuteness", but too much pain between.