4 ReviewsOrdered By: Date
Bad, just bad...
29 March 2009
I don't know where to begin on how bad this actually was. It could have worked. It could have. But it didn't. To me, the movie falls short in many many areas.

First, the plot is lacking, and is full of literary cliché. The chosen one, mystical item that only the chosen one can use, and the fate that the chosen one save the world. It also seemed to me that the story kept bouncing around from time period to time period without really showing us much, and to make it worse, it was hard to tell when in time they were. The only indication seemed to be Ergo's facial hair.

Second, the movie seems full of anachronisms and plot holes. Supposedly, several thousand years have passed since the end of the world, yet many remains of civilization seem to still be standing and in rather good condition for the amount of time that has passed. One such thing, is a tank that sits on the beach. Any metal object would have corroded away after a few centuries and not be around after a millennium, let alone several. Another thing that fails is the lack of any technology. Nuclear war would not revert mankind to the stone age. Pre-industrial, maybe, or even classical Greek, but not stone-age. Also, several instances of metal (Such as Ergo's eyebrow ring) and finely worked stone seem to occur, while the characters cannot even seem to create shoes, wooden tools and weapons, or crafts of any kind, while at the same time having woven clothes (Which they seemed to keep impeccably clean throughout). As far as plot holes are concerned, not only do the characters seem to hope around the continent (they seem to travel between the Rockies, Hawaii, Yosemite National Park, New England, British Columbia, and the Grand Canyon), but for being a post apocalyptic world where is supposedly never rains, the country seems overly lush and green, as well as there being flowing rivers and snowfields.

The final problems that stood out to me, was some of the more technical aspects. I know this is an independent film, but, there are many things that could have been better still. The camera never seemed to be steady, and was always bobbing up and down. Could have used a tripod, I feel. The fighting choreography could also have been better. Many times when characters were fighting, it looked like they had based it of the Dragonball anime, and it looked like they were playing patty-cake. Oh, and everyone seemed to have some level of magical ninja power. Finally, the first 30 minutes are narrated and the characters speak in some unknown language, but at one point, they switch into plain English and the narration stops. If they were going to start one way, they should have continued.

Good for a MST3k-ing, but otherwise, needs work.

And that's all I have to say about that.
6 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Gamers (2006)
It hurts to watch...
21 February 2009
As a gamer, I can't say I like this film. Fact is, I down right hate it. I tried to watch it as open minded as possible, but when it gets down to it, it feels rather insulting to my social group.

To me, there are several reasons why.

1. The characters seem unnatural. I've met lots of players, of all different walks of life. I don't know any who act like any of the characters in the film. It's like the producers of the film have taken the worst aspects of the worst stereotypes and put them all into 5 people. Most gamers are rather social people, some with rather active lives.

2. The style doesn't work. The mockumentary style is ill suited to the subject matter of the film. An actual documentary on gamers would actually work better. While it is good looking (I.E. cleanly put together), it isn't very good.

3. The dialogue feels forced, unnatural. It also seems to lack any real world context. Gamers swear, I'll admit that, but we don't have Tourette's Syndrome.

4. The humor is lacking. While self-deprecating humor is a mainstay of my group and several other groups I've encountered, this is less self-deprecation, and more like toilet humor. Likewise, a large part of gamer humor is full of in-jokes and anecdotes, not toilet humor. Most gamers would balk at and shun anybody who made such jokes.

5. The biggest problem to me is basically this: Accuracy. I don't mean rules, but instead dynamics. Invariably, this film is going to be compared to the even lower budget films The Gamers and The Gamers: Dorkness Rising, both of which portray the players as actual people playing an actual game. The difference is, Gamers: The Movie presents a situation where you want to beat the players senseless vs. The Gamers, where you can say something like: "Huh, I know a guy like that... Yep, that's definitely like Gary."
10 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Godzilla (I) (1998)
Where's Ghidora and Gamera?
12 March 2006
Isn't Godzilla (alongside some kid or group of kids) supposed to be the hero of the film? With the exception of this and the first film, Godzilla is the pseudo-savior of Tokyo. Albeit, while he levels half the city, he is always doing it to defeat the real villains or monsters. This film didn't have that. Heck, there is only one or two Japanese people in the entire film.

Real Godzilla films have the following...

~Godzilla is breathes radioactive fire. ~Godzilla never actually intends to destroy the city. It is always a side effect of his fighting the monsters that want to destroy the city.

~The movies are always based in Japan, primarily Tokyo.

~Godzilla fights other monsters. These other monsters (Ghidora, Megalon, space Godzilla) are the real bad guys.

This film did not have any of that. Part of the whole appeal of the real Godzilla films is the cheaper graphics, the man in a lizard suit, poorly dubbed voices, and NO Americans. (I don't hate us, it's just that we have a tendency to want things our way only)

Let's face it, the only thing really going for this was the clean look of the film.

And as a final thought, why DID Godzilla go to New York? (New York belongs to King Kong) Why didn't he go for Los Angeles or Seattle? Both are closer to the south pacific.

Verdict: Godzilla belongs in Tokyo, facing other monsters, whilst destroying parts of Japan. This film is not a Godzilla film. It's sci-fi film that resembles Godzilla films.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Dune (2000– )
Could have been better, could have been worse...
4 February 2006
In all accounts, I feel that the 2000 version was seriously lacking... Costumes are bad, acting is stale, and graphics were pretty bad.

I honestly prefer the original. It's not that the Sci-Fi channel's version is bad, it's just that it doesn't have the feel of the book or the Lynch film.

Story- I can agree that the new version is a bit more loyal to the book, but it tends to be cryptic, and doesn't convey the intrigue or depth that Herbert was intending.

Graphics- All I can say is that they are cheesy... Unlike the original film, the 2000 version was unrealistic. And the Worms were more like snakes in this film than sand worms. The original worms were true to the book, and in terms of reality, they were suited to living in the deep sands. I can't say the same for this version. And I honestly feel they should have spent an extra amount of money just to drive out into the desert just get the reality that wasn't there in this version. The backgrounds were obviously fake, and 3D graphics were overused. (they might as well have made the whole bloody thing animated instead)

Costumes- Looked like something out of a modern cartoon instead of something out of a militaristic, intergalactic, empire. 'Nough said.

Cast/Crew- Left much to be desired. They could have taken a bit more time choosing their cast and crew in this one. The director lacks understanding of Frank Herbert's vision, the cast was mediocre at best, and editors reused scenes too often. They showed the destruction of one village over and over in the context that they were different places every time.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this