Sagsag Reviews

Assault on Precinct 13 (2005)

Cinematic Equivalent of Junk Food

[4/10 · 26 July 2016]

If you were hoping for an avant-garde action movie produced by a Frenchman, think again - Richet is no Luc Besson.

The actual action, by itself, is decent at most, and that's the only thing going for this movie.

Actors performances are lackluster, screen writing is sloppy and lazy, suffering from lack of continuity and a formulaic plot, with twists so obvious, I foresaw them literally an hour before they eventually took place.

Characters are superficial and stereotypical, and fail to promote empathy, sympathy, or any other sentiments for them. Decisions and actions made by the characters (both "good guys" and "bad guys") often fail to make any sense.

Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol (2011)

Great action, nothing more

[6/10 · 3 May 2012]

As long as you're willing to put your brain on suspended animation for the duration of the movie, there's plenty of stuff to enjoy in the movie - amazing action scenes and stunts, incredible effects, some humor and corny lines, beautiful women etc.

If you do keep your brain active, you're in for some disappointment. There's your standard run-of-the-mill plot, with the tormented protagonist having to save the world with no government backup. Wow, déjà-vu! Didn't we have that back in MI:1? Oh sorry, got totally confused -- this time it's the *entire* IMF disavowed, not just Ethan. Plus, the plot here is even less sophisticated than the one in MI:1, so I can't really compare the two movies.

Anyhow, your brain would probably end up in suspended mode anyway, as a self protection mechanism, after being exposed to the senseless progression of the plot, the impossible stunts, or the shameless, explicit product placements. Even so, after the whole thing ends, you might find yourself wondering, as your brain regains consciousness: considering all of the futuristic, non-existent (not yet, anyway), technologies seen in the movie, how is it that some very important, existent technologies seemed to be missing (e.g. anti-ballistic missile systems?)

Considering the idea of the original MI TV series, where "impossible" missions were accomplished with wits, elaborate strategies and a couple of believable gadgets; and considering the idea of the MI:2-4 movies, where Tom Cruise and his associates accomplish missions with loads of futuristic gadgets and super-human abilities, I personally find it's really a shame how the two ideas got somewhere mixed up.

The Machinist (2004)

Long, Boring and Pointless

[5/10 · 13 March 2005]

I've decided to watch this flick with my girlfriend due to the rather high rating it had (IMDb 7.6 out of 10).

Both I and her were quite disappointed with the movie. Although only an hour and a half long, I had the impression it was at least 2 hours long, during which I was occasionally thinking when will the point of the movie finally arrive.

When it finally did, I was far from being surprised or shocked, and actually part of the point was pretty obvious to me throughout most of the movie.

To sum up, I consider watching this movie as a waste of time. I find the movie to be quite uninteresting, boring and pointless. I also find this movie to be too long (depite the rather standard runtime). I feel like the same story could have been told in half the time. In contrast, I could easily watch the extended version of "The Return of the King" (almost 4 hours long) without feeling the movie is long.

The only good thing about this movie is Christian Bale's act, which is very good and convincing. It's a pity that he has chosen such a terrible film to act in.

The Net (I) (1995)

Pretty good, entertaining movie

[7/10 · 29 October 2000]

This is one of the many Techno-phobic movies that sprouted like mushrooms in the mid-90s, after the Internet went mainstream.

Hollywood movies have always had their way in "beautifying" the depicted ongoings, to make them look better and more appealing. The same happens when Hollywood tries to show us some hi-tech. The outcome of such attempts varies from being very far-fetched and ridiculous (see Hackers (1995), Johnny Mnemonic (1995), etc.) to being quite realistic (see Sneakers (1992)).

"The Net" lies somewhere between those extremes. By nitpicking, one can end up with quite a lot of technical inconsistencies, and a lot of cases where the ongoings seem to be much more "sexy" and graphical than the way things are in real life (as usually happens in movies).

However, by simply overlooking those, the viewer ends up with a quite solid, entertaining movie. The characters and acting are convincing, and the movie does a good job in keeping you in your seat till the end of it. The plot is okay (a fairly standard one, really -- based on the good ol' paranoiac design, but with a hi-tech edge this time), and quite convincing (again, when disregarding technical issues). The development of the plot is a bit sluggish, though, and occasionally you can anticipate some supposedly surprising turns in the plot.

The bonus here is cutie-pie Sandra Bullock, which besides being cute (something she does quite easily, apparently), also portrays a solid act. You can really feel her character -- her despair, her emotions.

In the bottom line, the movie is entertaining and interesting, rates about 7 from 10 in my scale. It's worth renting from the video library, or even watching in the cinema. Whether to buy it or not is up to you.

Recoil (1998)

Purely an insult to one's intelligence

[3/10 · 14 February 2000]

The budget for this film was obviously completely spent on the stunts and the explosions, leaving nothing to the writers. How can one explain this film otherwise?

Out of all the B-movies I have watched lately, this one must have been the most predictable yet inconsistent, irrational, inaccurate and downright plain dumb, making it purely an insult to the viewer's intelligence. In fact, I have found myself laughing out loud in scenes that were probably supposed to be very dramatic.

Gary Daniels is playing Ray Morgan, a police detective making the mistake of killing the son of an obviously very important man in the local underworld (Sloan). From this point on, Morgan's life turns into a living hell, as Sloan decides to wage a little war against the ones responsible for the death of his son in particular, and apparently against the rest of the world in general, namely the local police station, families, friends and other innocent people passing by. When the fog of war clears up, Morgan finds himself alone, discovering all that are close to him are either dead or affiliated with Sloan. Being left only with a vengeance, Morgan sets out to destroy the man who destroyed him.

This pretty standard setting, along with a lousy script and a lousy post-production job, created an action packed comedy (well, I've found it quite hilarious). When overlooking the flaws of the film, you get quite a good action flick: there are grand chases (quite stupid, but grand nonetheless), loads of explosions, numerous shooting scenes, a high body count and finally a naked woman (the lovely Griffin Drew) -- all of which are essential ingredients for a decent action flick. However, there are a lot of flaws to overlook. I won't even start to list the inconsistencies of this flick or explain the foolishness presented in the flick, since doing so will generate quite a long list. On the other hand, if I were to give only a few examples, the whole image would not have been perceived, and you would have probably called me a perfectionist or a snob, so I won't do that either.

So if you're looking for pure action, choosing this flick might be a good choice. However, if you fear knowing reality or having good taste will damage your satisfaction, go for another feature (True Lies is good...).

Wild Wild West (1999)

Oh, the humanity

[3/10 · 2 August 1999]

I would like to start this article with a full list of what I consider to be this movie's advantages (or the reasons for one to watch this film). The first item of this list would probably be the amusing jokes and situations throughout the movie. The two other items would be Salma Hayek's butt and Salma Hayek's cleavage. Other than that, most of the movie was senseless infantile trash, suitable material for yet another episode of "Power Rangers".

The movie, based on a 1965 TV series by the same name, tells the story of one Jim West (Will Smith), a supposedly extraordinary US marshal, and another one Artemus Gordon (Kevin Kline), a supposedly extraordinary US marshal as well, shortly after the civil war. While the two are separately investigating the same certain case, they bump into each other and are teamed by the president to save the USA. They reveal a conspiracy by one Dr. Loveless (Kenneth Branagh) to take the USA apart so the land would be handed to its "rightful owners" (namely Loveless himself, as well as Britain, Spain and Mexico). Loveless' intentions are to make the president sign the contract for the USA's surrender after taking the entire US hostage by producing a mass destruction weapon, developed by high-caliber scientists, which were kidnapped and enslaved by him. The gunman West, teamed by gadget-man Gordon, are out to destroy Loveless' plans and save the world.

The result of this plot (a fairly standard, chewed-up "good vs. bad, good kills bad and saves the world" plot, actually) in this case, is a movie lacking any sense or logic (or coherence with history), which will by no doubt insult the intelligence of any brain-equipped viewer over the age of 15. I suppose the gimmick of the movie is the fact that at those times there were no electricity, so all the gadgetry had to be completely mechanical. The answer to the electricity issue, however, was always steam and springs -- starting from Gordon's spring loaded gadgetry and the reasonable steam powered train and tank, and ending with the completely preposterous steam powered wheelchair (controlled by a joystick and possesses some amazing remote-control capabilities), or a steam powered megaphone (!). Another scene presents some supposedly powerful (yet small) magnets with a rather peculiar behavior (a full list of all the factual mistakes in this scene, not to mention the whole movie, is far beyond the scope of this article). Besides the technical lack of logic, some actions performed by some of the characters are absolutely senseless as well. An example for such irrational behavior lies in the final duel between West and Loveless. I will not describe the actual act here so I would not "spoil" for anybody (as if it is possible in such a predicted film).

Some compare Will Smith's character (Jim West) to James Bond. I find this comparison utterly groundless. How can one compare the elegant yet discreet and cunning gentleman, working in the secret service of her highness to the brutal rash man who deals situations by "shooting first, shooting again, shooting some more and after everybody dies, trying to ask a few questions" (as was put by one of the movie's characters)? How can one compare the deliberated and clever agent to the hot-blooded US marshal who slaps the breasts of a woman in public, during one of the scenes? Bond would never do that even if he were certain the woman is indeed a man!

While the movie is very infantile, it contains some very adult-oriented jokes and scenes in it, which I have found quite amazing (in fact, the film was rated PG-13 for this very reason), considering the other parts of the film. The peek at Salma Hayek's tush is actually quite innocent, but a close up of at Ms. East's (Ling Bai) rear-end in a G-String is not innocent at all. Such more scenes are probably the whorehouse scene (depicting half naked people), the fight on Loveless' "spider" (depicting some freaks of nature) and finally a scene where light is being projected through a man's once-was-head to see the last picture he have seen before he died (which, horrifyingly, turns into a joke as well, as Will Smith repeatedly mumbles: "T-that is a m-man h-head"). These scenes stand in contrast to the infantile content throughout the movie -- while most of the movie is probably appropriate for little children alone, other is certainly not. Having seen the movie with my 11 years old brother, I sometimes think maybe he shouldn't have seen it at all (although he apparently liked the movie).

Finally, what really intrigues me most is the participation of a high quality actor as Kenneth Branagh in this silliness. I suppose he played his role well (a mad man's character, anyway), but I don't think this movie would look good in such an actor's resume.

In the bottom line, the film might have been quite funny; but then again there are much funnier films. I gave it 2/10 because I could have stayed in the theater throughout the movie (although I have been with my little brother, a fact which probably prohibited me from leaving). If you are above the age of 16 and you have the choice, DO NOT go to see this movie.