kensai-5 Reviews

Around the World in 80 Days (1956)

If you ever wanted to know what a Jules Verne story adapted by P.T. Barnum may have looked like

[4/10 · 3 March 2023]

I've never read the book... ...but I assume it's not in madmen territory to expect at least a modicum of adventure in a Jules Verne story. Especially when it's a story about traveling across the world in 1872. This film adaptation just tries its best to dazzle the audience into ignoring expectations of any such kind.

Primarily, the movie is nothing other than a 3-hour long travelogue-variety show.

And that's exactly what the director set out to do - a pompous showcase of the Todd-AO 70 mm film format & camera, with as many stars and pretty sights as financially possible - story be damned.

For much of the time, the protagonists do little else than sitting or standing in place, watching the events around them with barely a hint of emotion...or at least no change thereof (e.g. Passepartout constantly smiling). Especially Phileas Fogg is doing very little else. When he is onscreen, it's usually just to establish his current whereabouts, or to make sure that the audience doesn't forget that what there is of a story is still kinda about him.

Only few of the events even try to attach to any narrative, though. The antagonists do very little to undo that impression. What the audience is given, is barely more than an overstretched amusement ride, portraying American romanticized fantasies of what other countries and cultures looked like, in the previous century. Regardless of how pretty the sets were, which I'm sure was a much bigger deal in the 1950s, it is now rather boring to watch. The few events that do happen are terribly underperformed and only rarely evolve around the actions or decisions of the protagonists. It's like they're just there to watch, like the movie audience. There's one exception to this, but it just emphasizes another design flaw of this overbloated production...

The 2nd biggest problem is Cantinflas.

Seemingly the biggest star in Latin countries, attempts to translate his movies into other languages were apparently only rarely made, because a lot of his comedic talent was based on verbal wits, like twisting and turning words and meanings in conversations and monolog. A language specific skill that found no room in this Jules Verne interpretation.

The negative influence he had on this movie was not necessarily directly his fault. He appeared to be a fine enough actor and I initially liked his portrayal of Passepartout. That was until I noticed that he neither has any personality to talk about nor any character arc. All I can tell about him is that he seems friendly, is industrious to the point of risking his life for his employer and likes to clumsily and silently flirt with women...for a few seconds.

That could have been sufficient depth for a supporting actor. But this is where the movie bit its own behind. Cantinflas is basically the star of the story. I'd muse that maybe he paid a reasonable amount of money to help finance this oversized vanity project. To repay for this and his impactful popularity in the Latin entertainment industry, his character was given most of, if not the only plot driving role. Just about any time an event is put in motion by a protagonist, it's Passepartout. If there is an activity that requires any amount of physical effort beyond talking, walking or sitting, it's performed by him. As a consequence, he slowly becomes the sole protagonist of the movie and Fogg little more than a passive background sidekick.

What makes the viewing experience awkward, is that the script never cares to develop Passepartout's character enough to justify making him the center of attention. He's just a flimsy sketch of a silent-clown-turned-valet, without explained motivation or agenda. When he does things, it's to mildly goof around, giving the impression that some slapstick is supposed to happen...but it never does. Nothing leads up to any physical comedy, punchline or plot development. It's shallow non-verbal improvisation slapped onto a story stripped of all drama, tension and personality, to instead focus on an overblown variety show with the taste of a chewing gum in its 5th hour.

Passepartout's design seemed very inspired by Charlie Chaplin's "tramp" persona. It's a very similar clothing style and even some of the mannerism can remind of that aspect of the silent film era. More than once he gets into trouble in much the same way as the tramp may have. Except that there's not much comedy to point at.

In effect, it's like watching a Chaplin imitator on a journey, but without any humor and the plot given to his co-star, a rarely onscreen British pedant.

David Niven, the British pedant, is on record as citing this as his favorite role in a ~50 years spanning career. Such a shame that he was given barely anything to do with his acting talent or screen presence. His Phileas Fogg is just tossed along as things happen around him.

The cameos, another central aspect of this production, seemed particularly uninteresting to me. My imagination could have done a lot more with internationally known stars, in a story that has the entire globe as its playground. Most of them are just used as 2-dimensional, bland characters, that you simply won't notice if you don't know/recognize the actors.

All of the present stars just played second fiddle to the variety show.

The Void (I) (2016)

Great special effects but no substance otherwise

[4/10 · 29 July 2022]

The movie has a few good moments, but they are watered down by horrible use of sound/music and by being centered around characters that you'll have a hard time caring about. No one has any interesting back story or at least attention-grabbing personality. They're all either bland or wrestling with the confused script they've been given. Mostly both.

The sound and music design is annoyingly bad. In order to get any emotional reaction out of the audience, the movie relies on being excessively loud whenever something happens. Sometimes it's entirely unclear whether a sound is caused by something happening within the story or just part of the soundtrack.

The story is shallow and badly constructed. There are parts of which the writers and/or director seem to have believed they'll add to the mystery and/or tension. Instead they just help in breaking tension, by making the involved characters less relatable/likable, without helpfully adding to the story at all. There are quite a few moments where characters seem to teleport to their positions. At least teleportation would seem like the only feasible explanation for how they got there without anyone else noticing them. Unless the annoyingly loud ambient music was actually part of the world/story, cause that too could then explain why no one heard them.

In conclusion, I'd say aVOID this movie, unless you really need to see the special effects, which are good but not to the extent to call it a "must-see".

Bushwick (2017)

Very intiguing start, lackluster mid-section, horribly mismatched ending!

[3/10 · 18 March 2022]

An interesting enough concept for a movie, ruined by frequent, horrible script sequences. Two of those moments stick out especially strongly.

In the middle, a new character is introduced and we're shown a setup and dialog so badly conceived that the actors have no idea what to do with it. It's a long cringe.

The end entirely ruins the whole viewing experience, making me regret having watched it. It might have been acceptable if the internal logic had matched the protagonists' action. Sadly, though, the movie attempts a rush that just seems artificial and isn't sufficiently explained to make sense.

All actors are otherwise doing a decent enough job, considering the fairly long takes without cut or edit. The director seemingly also did well enough and the action scenes work.

Yakuza Apocalypse (2015)

It's bonkers without providing worthwhile entertainment.

[3/10 · 12 March 2022]

From my perspective, Takashi Miike is one of the worst directors that ever managed to gain popularity. Like most directors that emerged since the 90s, he's completely unwilling to learn from the works of others. To make matters worse, he's seemingly also impervious to learning from his own decades of experience.

Miike's movies usually come with at least intriguing ideas, but they're almost always realized with dazzling incompetence. In the case of Yakuza Apocalypse, all of his worst qualities as a filmmaker are coming together. Here's how I'd describe it: Uninteresting characters are doing uninteresting things, interrupted by weirdness and coincidence, but always filmed in the most lackluster locations with camera angles and pacing that are sure to destroy any entertainment potential. Towards the end, things get weirder and the director sloppier.

The primary reason I had for sitting through this mess, was the inclusion of Yayan Ruhian, one of the most competent martial arts actors of our time. Yet, the fight scenes he was involved in could have been played by anyone who has at least semi-successfully practiced a martial art involving kicks, for a few years. Miike made sure to mostly only use the worst camera angles possible, but tried to make up for it by quickly switching between as many of them as he had available, in editing. There was also barely any choreography, but mostly wild flailing, without rhyme or reason.

I'm glad Yayan Ruhian got a lot of parts in movies of all types (like, e.g., Star Wars), but I have no idea why studios thought they would need him, if all they use him for could as well be done by a random party-clown (like, e.g. In Star Wars, where he was just standing around before being devoured by CGI).

Caught in Time (2020)

Barely believable action without an emotional base to carry tension.

[3/10 · 8 March 2022]

The movie got so invested into its weakly conceived plot thread, that it forgot to give the audience anything to care about. Much is happening but you may find it hard to apply any interest, due to the absence of any persons to root for or be worried about.

The wannabe-charismatic antagonist is too evil. The protagonist is the blandest piece of dry bread you could try to imagine. No one else is established long enough to grant you the strength to even raise an eyebrow at.

Daniel Wu, as the antagonist, could have done a better job, I believe. I've seen him act well in other movies. Sadly, the director is quickly revealed as tone-deaf and has, I assume, never cared to repeat any of the scenes for a better take. Wu has still done at least remotely okay enough...but his charisma gets doused by lack of efficient direction or script. The story attempts to give his character depth, but apparently forgets that his actions weigh more than his scrawny sub-plot.

Qianyuan Wang got the worst deal out of it, though. It's possible to see what type of cop he's trying to portray, yet he's never given a moment to be anything but the worst trope of 100+ years of character writing for crime movies. No character development, no personality to describe with more than a few words and no reasonable establishment of his motivation.

The last fight had me at least mildly entertained, short as it was. What finally managed to raise my eyebrows, though, was the very end, revealing the fate of one of the characters. It's a somewhat shocking statement on Chinese government. At least that how I read it.

Batman: Soul of the Dragon (2021)

Very underwhelming product!

[3/10 · 15 February 2022]

A rather trashy homage to 70s martial arts movies, Bruce Lee, Jim Kelly and all the tired tropes you could attach to the concept.

The visual art style and quality are typical for US American animated movies, aimed for TV and video releases. Very sloppy shapes and extremely simple lines, filled with mostly flat colors, for the characters. More details and colors for the backgrounds.

Humans sometimes look comically bad, but at least their movement is mostly more than just competently done.

The martial arts choreography and visuals, while all over the place, are not to blame for the trashy feel. That accomplishment goes to the horrible pacing and cringe-inducing dialog.

Some of the characters appear to have no other task than to fill the oldest and dumbest tropes. The authors attempt to cover that up by assigning out-of-the-blue, 180 degree personality switches, propelling people from one trope to the next. No attempt is made to explain the sudden change of personality.

The story itself is bland, but serviceable for its purpose. What it's mostly lacking is any strength in evoking emotions, tension or at least some mild curiosity for the scenario.

I feel like there are nowadays tutorials on Youtube, that would tell you how to achieve any of that.

The writing is so low-brow, you'd swear it was aimed at children. Yet, the content is at least a notch above PG.

The Age of Blood (2017)

It missed the mark of being a gem in its genre

[6/10 · 30 June 2021]

A conceptually interesting movie, that fails in its tone, pacing and believability. The fight choreography is competent but sadly adds to the aforementioned problems.

The initial tone might make you expect a comedy, something light-hearted or maybe a "dramedy". Characters are introduced as seemingly goofy and useless. I assume it's done to subvert expectation and surprise viewers with the coming events. The idea seems good to me, but isn't executed to best effect. The first 15 minutes made me feel like watching an episode of a very generic TV series with failing humor, but somewhat intriguing characters.

Once the action begins, everything seems a lot more promising. The fights favor flashiness over authenticity and there's a few too many edits, with the camera jumping around, mid-action. Yet, the action looks fairly good, featuring decent movie martial arts, and all moves are readable despite the editing. It's fun to watch, at least for the time it stays believable. Here's where pacing and plausibility get in the way, though. On a very theoretical level, it might seem sufficient to just have a well choreographed fight sequence, for entertainment. Like a boxing match or MMA cage fight. That works in sports for a couple of reasons. The primary one probably being that the specific audience has an interest in that specific type of fighting style. In a movie, it's generally smarter and a lot more efficient when the individual fights themselves tell a small story that the viewer can relate to, rather than just to have a fight where opponents exchange blows until winner and loser are defined. Jackie Chan understands this element perfectly. His choreography always has more to get invested in and it's not exclusively humorous.

The Age of Blood does little to make the fights relatable and takes a clumsy approach at trying to create tension. It's putting all of its weight onto the assumption that the audience wants to see the underdog win. That concept loses impact when there are sequences where you might be left wondering why characters are even fighting, when there were reasonable options to avoid conflict. After several of those incidents, the movie begins running on empty. The protagonist's motivation is so unclear that he even questions himself, at some point. And the story does not have enough substance to support repetitive action without tension.

Considering how the movie starts, character development could have been a saving grace. But although we learn more about the characters, they never seem to change along the way. What's left is a sequence of decent action scenes with lacking focus, intriguing characters played by competent actors and a thin story, based on real events. Enough for some mild entertainment, but hardly memorable.

Props to the stunt/action team, including all participating actors, though! They did great work for what I assume was a relatively low budget.

Mortal Kombat (2021)

Mortal Kringe

[2/10 · 22 June 2021]

At this point I'm not sure what I find more embarrassing, the movie or the fact that there's thousands of people who claim to have liked it.

I have mostly come to terms with the fact of life that different people like different things. Most things are subjective. There's no good reason to fight over opinions. Yet, all throughout my life there have continually been occasions where a majority of humankind agreed on making fun of certain subjects, due to their very obvious lacking qualities. I'd say Tommy Wiseau and his movie "The Room" make a good example. "Birdemic" is another. All of Neil Breen's products fit in that category.

Mortal Kombat is only a small step above that league. The actors are all capable, when in actual movies. There's reasonable special effects and some of the choreography is above competent. But the writing, all of the dialog, the plot, the direction and all-non-combat interactions between the characters...are as painful or cringe-inducing to sit through as the movies mentioned above. Yes...I'd put the writers of the script (that was used for filming) and the director on the same competence level as Tommy Wiseau. And that's no exaggeration.

Accordingly, my reaction to people who unironically like "Mortal Kombat" is about the same as to people who'd defend "Birdemic" for its "great special effects". I'm pondering their sanity.

The Pirates of Blood River (1962)

Very low on the list of Hammer movies I'd recommend watching.

[5/10 · 16 January 2021]

A disappointing Hammer film! I believe it may have been hastily written for the sets they had available. The plot is already pretty weak, which isn't necessarily a problem for entertaining story-telling, but almost all other elements are also under-whelming. To my subjective perception, there were only three noteworthy actors, with not one of them providing a memorable performance, due to sub-par writing with exceptionally stupid dialog. Andrew Keir is playing a stubborn village leader, who is seemingly written to grow more unlikable with each minute on screen. Oliver Reed is cast as an insignificant character and Christopher Lee is tasked with the role of an unusually bland pirate captain. He's skillfully leaning into it, but can't save that the character is given unconvincing actions and words.

The protagonist is played by Kerwin Mathews, an actor with good looks and some screen charisma. Sadly, I've never seen him in a leading role where he didn't seem dim-witted after a while of watching, due to exaggerated impulsiveness and righteousness caused by indoctrination rather than insight. At times it feels like he's helplessly stumbling through the movie, pushed around by events, causing trouble by absence of any wisdom, with almost all other actors stealing his show. His co-star, Glenn Corbett, has a lot less screen time, but uses it with far more charisma. Coincidentally (?), he's also given much better lines.

The movie doesn't have the inspiring visual quality of some of the better known Hammer productions and despite some good locations, it never manages to provide believable action. Even a sabre fight with Christopher Lee turns out dull, due to his opponent's lack of matching skill. Only barely worth a watch, for those with enough curiosity.

The Damned (1962)

It's not without value but doesn't find enough traction to sufficiently entertain in 2020.

[4/10 · 12 January 2021]

It wasn't a movie for me, but here are some of the observations I made. There are no spoilers, since I focus on character profiles, but my review might be more useful to those who know the story. Initially, I was about to rate the movie a 3, until I read the review of someone who had thoughts on the characters. To my perception that person was entirely on the wrong track, looking for depth with a withered straw. Yet, it made me remember that I liked the psychological nuances of at least some of the characters. Topics that were coming up a lot throughout the story, are trust and closeness. After a single viewing I'd dare say all major roles had their troubles with those. The male protagonist, Simon, a middle-aged and lone American tourist, gets involved in the story through his desire for closeness. He meets and gets to like the young, pretty and mystifying Joan. She and her brother King, the leader of a gang, apparently were not growing up in a warm and loving environment, but one that causes children to grow into suspicious adults, who are struggling to find rewarding closeness. Both of them only had each other to trust and be close to, but they never learned well how to open up emotionally. Also, there's a limit to how close you can get to a sibling. The emotionally unstable King only had his own strength to rely on. That's a trait that will earn you the respect of young low-life men. Thus, the group of rebels he hangs out with are his next best company. In his unending mistrust of adults, he acts overly protective towards his sister, trying to keep the only person he feels a deeply rooted closeness to, from harm. Even more so, his protective zeal is fueled by egotistical worries. If she finds a lover, he might lose the only person close to him. Joan cannot find trust and comfort in an emotionally struggling brother, who wouldn't leave her her own space. She keeps trying to look for a man who might provide her with closeness, by also being trustworthy. Eventually she hopes to have found such a man in Simon, who displays encouraging acts of gallantry and maybe fatherliness. Her reactions speak openly, whenever he threatens to betray the trust and hope she lays in him.

I won't give away much by saying the small children are the prime example for lacking both, closeness and trust. It is a pity, though, that the movie is slow to reach that part of the story. The conflicts the story provides up to that point, are a little too shallow in the 21st century. The characters don't have enough charisma or depth to capture my attention. Oliver Reed wasn't given enough substance to save the day. If you're very intrigued by the topics of trust and closeness, from the perspective of a dark story in the 60s, it's probably worth a view. I was struggling to stay for the end, though.

The Bad and the Beautiful (1952)

It probably was a noteworthy movie, 70 years ago. Not so much today.

[4/10 · 7 January 2021]

Vincente Minnelli was a great director, as far as I can tell. Of course, that doesn't mean he didn't have weaknesses and I believe those show strongly here, combining several bad choices. Aside of that, I'm sure I would have rated this movie much higher, had I seen it in the 50s-70s. In the 2020s, much of this is direly outdated. I must assume that color might have served in Minnelli's favor. He had a good eye for setting mood, but with the story being centered on the production side of film making, black and white is seemingly dowsing any emotional effects. There's a constant feel of monotony that just doesn't match with the narrative. Picking the right colors for each scene, would at least have granted memorable visuals. I won't be able to remember a single moment, except those that stuck out for the wrong reasons.

I can't tell whether Minnelli was allowed to freely pick the actors he desired...but to me, the cast ruined the experience. Douglas had enough charisma but his performance mostly just seemed like a dry parody of a narcissistic actor. I only appreciated the part where he revealed the emotionally troubled side of the character. It wasn't great, though. Rather, it was the needed contrast to his shallow acting up to that point. Lana Turner, Dick Powell and Barry Sullivan were just utterly unremarkable to me. Their acting was fine, if the task was to seem boring or to not have any charisma. As a result, I was bored throughout most of the movie. Gloria Grahame's performance sticks out like a sore thumb. I can't possibly tell what she got the Oscar for. All of her scenes just looked and sounded exaggeratedly stilted. I might not have been more baffled had they inserted a manic-depressive clown in her stead. That certainly would have made Powell's performance as her husband more believable. Especially in the last third of his story segment. I can't believe Minnelli accepted/directed that specific, unemotional acting and I doubt the effect was intentional.

A reasonable rating might be a 5, but I was too annoyed by the end and unable to relate to any of the characters.

The Evil of Frankenstein (1964)

Promising start. Lackluster ending. Great Cushing!

[6/10 · 3 January 2021]

Several aspects of the movie ruin what could have been a more intriguing story and better entertainment. Peter Cushing is as reliable as usual, in his portrayal of the baron, drawing the attention. All of the co-stars are doing a fine enough job and the first half of the movie has an interesting and unpredictable buildup, with frequent location changes. I enjoyed the first 45 minutes and was really hoping for the plot to continue in that fashion. Well...it didn't.

The story doesn't have any tie-ins to the previous two or following three Cushing-Frankenstein titles. The connections between them are generally a bit loose, but this one goes to the length of giving us a flashback that clarifies we're in an alternative story, that's more closely related to Universal's telling of the tale. Apparently that happened because Universal stepped in as distributor for this Hammer production and allowed them to use copyrighted material they didn't have access to previously. That doesn't play in this movie's favor, though. Hammer's attempt at recreating the Frankenstein monster as seen in the 30s-40s, is rather sad, or funny at best, depending on your mindset. A part of the makeup consisted of what looks like a carton strapped to the actor's forehead and covered with paper mâché, to provide the square shaped head. In a black & white movie it might have worked well. In color it would have required a more skillful and inventive makeup artist, to look efficient. The camera and lighting are also never cleverly used to enhance the creature's potential scariness. What we get is very lackluster.

The movie's second half does not find anything interesting to evolve around, but instead mixes predictable Frankenstein tropes with another popular horror motif of the 60s, completely ignoring any logical inconsistencies and also never daring to fully commit to the idea. The climax is devoid of any ideas or ambition, giving the production a feel of a hastily written and unwillingly delivered homework, on a subject that the author had no interest in. Going with the previous thought, the first half of the movie has a spirit of freestyle. The second was the fulfillment of obligatory exercise.

Horror of Dracula (1958)

Limited budget rushed the production, causing plot and narration to suffer. Cushing and Lee were amazing, though.

[6/10 · 1 January 2021]

If you think this is the best Dracula movie, bless you. It's a charming opinion. Objectively, though, the production is far too flawed to crown an unbiased "best of" list. Its visual attractiveness might veil it, but the film's lacking budget caused fundamental cracks that keep it from reaching height.

Cushing, IMO, is the best of all the Van Helsings put on film. The right age and vitality to convince as both, sage and monster hunter, and the right charisma to root for such a laconic and stiff loner. That aside, it's a rather shallow characterization. We learn next to nothing about his background or motivation. Same is true for all other characters. While the movie has the same pretty atmosphere as most Hammer productions, the director only barely commits to the horror genre. We never linger on any creepy scenes except for one cemetery and Christopher Lee's performances, which are fairly efficient. But all locations are too bright and none of the victims are ever sufficiently terrified. Maybe to make up for that, the staking scenes are overly bloody. As a *horror* film, though, "Dracula" is mediocre, at best. I'd even say it's disappointing, probably due to the strong financial constraints.

Worst of all are the witless plot changes: Someone was given the task to rewrite the story so that it might match the very limited budget. That person did not care to make sure that the original events logically connect to the changes. I'll provide 2 examples: 1) In the movie Jonathan Harker visits Dracula's castle, which is not far (!) from his hometown (less than a night's ride in a fast carriage!). As he introduces himself to the count we are given the impression that he is clueless to his evil nature. Just as it was the case in Stoker's novel. So, we're not very surprised, when Harker pulls a big photo of his fiance from his luggage and proudly displays it to Dracula, mentioning her full name and giving all the details that one might require if searching for someone. Relatively normal behavior, given everything we know at that point in the movie, indicating that this poor fellow doesn't suspect evil. But... Immediately after the count leaves his room, Harker pulls out his diary and enters "[...] with God's help I will forever end this man's reign of terror." As we learn just a little time later, Harker already knew that Dracula was a vampire and was basically sent by Van Helsing to destroy him. He knew of his supernatural powers and that he drank the blood of his victims, turning them into monsters. All of these details are rewrites, differing from the novel. Now, how likely is it that Harker would place a big photo of his fiance inside the home of a bloodsucking devil and then tell him her name? Considering his knowledge and that she lives less than a 24 hour ride away, it's utterly ridiculous. On top of that, it's shocking how badly prepared he was, despite being sent by an expert on vampires. Everything that happens to him mostly makes sense in the context of the novel, but when placed within the rewritten script of this movie, it's just raising questions and more eye-brows than I have available. I physically strained to raise more.

2) After Van Helsing has to stake Harker, he visits his fiance, Lucy, and her relatives, to bring the bad news. They know nothing of vampires but Lucy has already been bitten, causing her family to ask for the doctor's help. Van Helsing, at this point, is hellbent on destroying the murderous count and all that is keeping him from trying is that he doesn't know where to find him. Isn't it extremely convenient then, that he discovers that the vampire will be visiting Lucy the very next night?! Well...yes...but no! Instead Helsing gives the family some instructions on how to prepare the victim's room and goes home, announcing to return in the morning, just as he did in the novel. The family prepares the room, then disappears, only leaving behind a gullible maid who can easily be convinced by the hypnotized victim to remove all of the preparations. Dracula enters. Lucy dies. Family mourns. Helsing mopes. I facepalm. Brows lift off. All of that made sense in the novel, where Helsing just acted on theories he gained from books. He had never dealt with vampires before and was forced to educate himself on their powers as the story progressed. He didn't have a reason for revenge or solid knowledge on how to hunt blood sucking monsters, but just on how to potentially ward them off. Helsing in this movie doesn't have these excuses. His knowledge was obviously sufficient to justify sending a single man into Dracula's castle. He had every reason and power to stay at Lucy's home and wait to engage the man that caused his friend's death...and now threatened to kill his fiance. The movie never explains Helsing's lack of action. It just imitates the novel, but adds enough incoherent changes to annihilate its inherent logic.

Other Dracula movies have successfully attempted to tell a more coherent version of the story. At least some of them were aided by bigger budgets. All of them lacked Cushing.

Curse of the Undead (1959)

Slightly unusual characters enhance an otherwise too familiar plot flow.

[6/10 · 30 December 2020]

To be frank...I watched about 15 minutes of the movie and decided I was done with it, because nothing exciting, entertaining or at least interesting happened. It just seemed like a rather lackluster attempt at a vampire movie, that was counting on winning viewers by placing it in the late 19th century of the USA. The initial roster of characters primarily consists of low-brow townsfolk, some of which quickly display an inability to cope with conflict in any other way other than violence. Accordingly, I thought I knew where the story was headed. Luckily, I skipped forward by a few minutes, instead of just hitting the stop button. The movie has quite a few subtle surprises, by featuring dialog and depth of character that are rather unusual in this budget range and genre. Especially Michael Pate, an actor known for playing villains with astounding charisma, is making the plot a lot more intriguing than I expected. I was also pulled in by Edward Binns' portrayal of the sheriff, who doesn't look like the part, but convinces in dialog and action.

Two things that disappoint despite the pros. Missing almost entirely from the events is any horror. The movie mostly plays out like any western. It just adds a touch of the supernatural without sufficient depth to it. Additionally, the story never steers from the clichéd path, to explore a slightly different narrative than "good vs evil". It doesn't have all of the same character tropes as other movies of the time, thus a different outcome might have helped it gain more attention.

Burying the Ex (2014)

Did Joe Dante really direct this?

[3/10 · 26 December 2020]

I find it very hard to believe that Joe Dante was the director. It rather looks like work done by an amateur. The film is tone-deaf in all respects and I'm not the first to point out that it has the feel of being made for TV...by students. I'd recommend avoiding this. Nothing worthwhile to see, except how *not* to make a movie.

Frankenstein and the Monster from Hell (1974)

Good actors - disappointing story - appropriate wig

[5/10 · 25 December 2020]

Engaging characters played by very good actors and an intriguing premise for a story, initially provide solid entertainment. After a while it becomes clearer that the story is not going to progress to anything new or interesting. A very wasted opportunity and certainly one of the reasons why the movie failed to draw audiences. The "monster from hell" doesn't match its description, unless the costume was made by the devil to have a laugh. Its oddly furry and monstrous appearance is never convincingly explained, considering that the man must already have looked like that before baron Frankenstein had stitched new hands onto him.

The film's focus is to unnerve and gross out, in a calm and slow pacing. Nowadays that'll only succeed with inexperienced or extremely sensitive viewers. There's only a minimal amount of action and horror will never occur, due to the lacking quality of the costume, which already failed to convince in the 70s. Still, the characters/actors do their best, provide good dialog and basically carry the movie. The building that the majority of the story takes place in, is a convincing setting. The costumes work well too. That also goes for Cushing's wig that many other reviewers consider ridiculous. It's a hairdo you would have seen a lot at the time.

Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed (1969)

Engaging and well acted story, that sadly shifts in the wrong direction in the last third.

[6/10 · 25 December 2020]

It's a well made movie, which especially in the beginning is more engaging than many films with much higher budget in the past 20 years. The story is centered on Doctor Frankenstein's criminal endeavors and although he is not a character to sympathize with in this interpretation, the story cleverly involves other people to bring about tension as we follow his murderous methods.

Towards the end, the plot loses momentum rapidly, sacrificing any potential excitement to instead unsuccessfully evoke a sense of drama for a character the audience will hardly care about. Frankenstein becomes a little too inhuman and some figures, that initially seemed central to the plot, are not part of the final chapter, without explanation. It's quite unfortunate. Without a smart conclusion in the last third of the movie, the story becomes quite forgettable and unsatisfying.

A particularly bad addition to the film was demanded by its distributors, shortly before production finished. I won't give it away in this spoiler-free review, but if you wish to know, it's being prominently mentioned in the *spoiler* section of the *trivia*. Peter Cushing hated this script change for the right reasons. Positives outweigh the negatives, though. Worthwhile viewing.

The Babadook (2014)

Great director and actors, but just not the right story for me.

[4/10 · 21 December 2020]

It should be clarified that Jennifer Kent is a very good director. Unlike many of her colleagues she appears to have a clear vision and the skills to see it realized on film. The subject she chose for her feature length debut isn't an easy sell for everyone, though. It deals with depression, mental (in)stability, social pressure, hardships of parenting and the loss of loved ones. The visual style tries its hardest to emphasize all of those aspects, ensuring that the audience can partake in the protagonists' misery. The movie is very efficient in creating a bad mood and that's cause for many overly critical reviews. All of the 1-star ratings are fairly ridiculous and a showcase that people are often entirely incapable of casting fair judgement.

My review isn't shedding the best of light on The Babadook either. The actors are great and I can see all of the ways in which Jennifer Kent succeeded in realizing her vision, but when I wasn't annoyed by all of the (intentionally) exaggerated characters, I found myself bored and/or negatively affected by the depressive tone. I guess I was especially disappointed that the movie wasn't as scary as people claimed it would be. There was one moment that started out with much promise but then immediately moved on with fully showing the Babadook and thus annihilated all chances of evoking fear. It never picked up from there. What hurt the movie the most, was that I never cared for the fates of the two protagonists. They do have character arcs, but those were too subtle for me, especially considering how the movie ends.

Hardly any of my criticism counts objectively. It's mostly a subjective disliking.

Anna and the Apocalypse (2017)

Lack of skillful direction drags it down

[3/10 · 20 December 2020]

As a musical this might tickle something for you, if generic pop is your flavor. As a comedy it'll only work if you're someone who can laugh about pretty much anything. Bless you, if that's the case! As a horror movie it has absolutely nothing noteworthy to say or show. All of the kills loose their gravity due to the director's incompetence of creating even a single believable scene, despite the obvious intention of appearing dramatic.

Just looking at the zombies, their threat level never exceeds: "Oh, there's a group of zombies. Guess I better walk away leisurely, before one of them trips and accidentally grazes my skin with its teeth." It's utterly unclear how anyone manages to get bitten, or why people even get in a panic. In the beginning of the movie we're given a scene where two children fight off a group of clumsy zombies with their backpacks...successfully and without ever seeming in danger. That's the level of horror to expect.

Despite all of this, the movie seriously believes it's telling a drama. The zombies aren't clumsy for humor's sake. They're simply never given any direction that would create anything resembling a moment of danger. With little to nothing to laugh about, the complete lack of any tension or drama, what you're left with is a somewhat tone-deaf musical for fans of the most generic pop music.

Night Watch (2004)

A bad example of style over substance

[3/10 · 15 December 2020]

It has an interesting concept and the visual style provided by special effects helps in creating an atmosphere. The actors seem fine and I could find more aspects to laud...but...

To me, this was a horrible viewing experience.

Since the late 90s, film making is going through a shift that causes movies all over the world to become very similar in tone, regardless of genre. The elements that are mostly responsible for this tainting effect are generic music (used to explain to the audience what emotion to have), uninspired camera work, over-reliance on tropes, formulaic scripts and an imbalance of plot-contrivance over logic.

Night Watch has all of those problems...to the extreme. Especially the action scenes are unbearable for someone who's overly aware of the lack of underlying logic. Things only happen to artificially exaggerate drama and drive the plot, *not* because anything is a logical consequence of events. I wasn't entertained for even a brief moment, but rather annoyed frequently, due to a severe lack of tension or sense where it mattered the most. Particularly the end is plain dumb.

Firecracker (1981)

Watchable for fans of *bad* movies

[3/10 · 24 May 2019]

This movie doesn't hold anything of interest to the average viewer. Back in the early 80s it had the fairly rare oddity of featuring a western woman as a martial arts protagonist. Nowadays it'll just be worthwhile to people who are fascinated by the awkward B-movie productions that bloomed together with the video tape market. Like most low budget movies of that time, Firecracker lacks good writing, editing, acting, fight choreography, camera operation and a director who understands the genre. The laughable scenario might intrigue fans of bad movies.

The uncut version has a few scenes of explicit gore and sexploitation. I wouldn't consider them noteworthy except for the odd tonal mismatch to the rest of the movie. Especially the nude scenes raise a lot of questions regarding the plot and internal logic.

Jillian Kesner's character could have been an early example of a strong female lead in an action movie, except that the producers probably demanded to balance her tough moments with weak ones. The result is a protagonist who appears to suffer from multiple personality disorder, seemingly fearless in most scenes, but helpless and scared when the script is asking for moments of sexual humiliation.

Jillian's martial arts performances are only barely watchable if you have hardly any experience in the field. She didn't know what she was doing and it shows in every single stance and move. That considered, she's at least doing better than most pretty women cast in action movies at the time, but the more competent scenes are performed by her double, whom you'll recognize by the wig. Rey Malonzo adds a few decent fight scenes that are at least on par with the most average western martial arts movies of that era. His Bruce Lee imitation certainly isn't the worst. Unfortunately, they seemingly decided not to keep his voice in the fight scenes when they added the sound effects for punches, kicks, etc. Thus, we can't tell whether he also tried to imitate Bruce's cat calls.

Speaking of sound, the synthesizer based soundtrack might be the most worthwhile feature of Firecracker.

Isle of the Dead (2016)

No entertainment here!

[2/10 · 17 January 2019]

I just wanted to leave a fair warning for people who are curious enough about "Isle of the Dead" to browse this section of IMDb. The rating and many of the reviews apply an impression of the movie being mediocre. I'm not sure if maybe people nowadays have a distorted understanding of the term "mediocre"? I usually use it to describe something being average, right in the center between "good" and "bad", not having features that justify becoming positively excited about, but also not in a region to evoke anger or similarly negative feelings.

There isn't anything that I could imagine to happen that would make an averagely intelligent person use the term "mediocre" after seeing this movie. Even the makeup, which might pass as average in a competently lit production, is degraded by the director's absence of talent and skill. With, let's say, a "mediocre" amount of perception and experience with movies, it isn't difficult to notice when, where and how to use the lighting available in the sets of this production, to an effect that might efficiently utilize mood, atmosphere and suspense. Like most incapable directors nowadays, Nick Lyon decided to leave these aspects to the sound design, with the idea that you can get an audience to react with tension when loud noise is constantly wearing down their nerves. As a consequence, instead of having zombies that unnerve due to subtle movement discrepancies, giving the observer a growing feeling that something is wrong with that person, standing unstably in the dim light, you get screaming, fidgeting clown-zombies that pound their chests and cheer on the stronger leader-zombies, as they all macho-jerk through brightly lit tunnels, clearly exposing their rubber masks and unevenly painted faces.

The action almost solely consists of shootouts with zombies appearing suddenly and silently out of nowhere, giving this amazing contrast of them behaving as impeccable ninjas until a *camera* (that is to say "the movie audience") has sight of them, which immediately turns them into screaming berserkers, regardless of whether a living human is anywhere near them or not. The remaining 20% of the action are ambitious but inappropriate melee fights, where soldiers decide to not use their ample time to shoot zombies but brawl them until they fall to the ground, a good distance away, and THEN open fire at them. Sarcasm aside, I might give the movie credit for at least decently ambitious melee combat. Sadly, it's getting lost on the dumb situations it is being used in. Just like any element of a movie, it won't cause excitement if it doesn't have a believable purpose and if nothing relatable is at stake.

Like most Asylum movies, Isle of the Dead doesn't have an actual story. Their usual filmmaking process is to acquire a couple of sets that can serve as a location for a shallow plagiarization idea and slap a quickly improvised script on top, that rudimentarily ties the places and events together. The sets for this movie are "jungle", "abandoned factory site" and "abandoned science lab". The script clumsily touches on the usual subjects connected to the zombie genre, without caring about logic or coherence. Regardless of that, the movie isn't shy to fill a sizable amount of its run time with dialog, that after a while becomes painful to listen to.

My recommendation is to avoid this movie and try something less conventional, like "The Girl with all the Gifts" (2016) or something smarter, like "Wyrmwood: Road of the Dead" (2014) (the movie, not the TV series).

The Dawnseeker (2018)

Looks like a project done by barely talented hobby filmmakers

[2/10 · 16 January 2019]

After seeing "The Dawnseeker", my assumption was that it must be a first attempt at a semi-professional movie production for the people involved. Work that finally involved some budget, although clearly far too low an amount for the genre. IMDb claims Justin Price has written, produced and directed movies for over 10 years, though. That's at least a bit puzzling, considering the script and director are the weakest joints of this unsteady, skeletal framework of a movie. The lacking acting qualities are mentioned by many reviews, but my perception is that some of the actors could have done a better job, if the director had the ability to recognize a bad take. It needs to be said, though, that not a single shot in this movie shows even a trace of any skill or know-how with a camera, lighting, pacing or the creation of suspense. I dare say the director likely never bothered to learn his craft, but instead just bluntly imitates bad tropes and elements from movies that stuck with him.

I believe it's a bad idea to direct if you cannot perceive the finer nuances of camera shots, atmosphere, acting and emotion.

Not to dwell on it too much, but I find it at least a little disturbing that Price's movies almost always seem to find a big flock of people giving a 10-rating on IMDb. Even when there's hardly anyone giving a score between 6-9. Hopefully he doesn't have a hand in that.

The Unity of Heroes (2018)

Underwhelming

[4/10 · 15 January 2019]

The Unity of Heroes does try to evoke the spirit of the "Once Upon a Time in China" movies (starring Jet Li), but sadly fails with both, story and action.

The choreography is vastly inferior despite Wenzhuo Zhao in the lead. The director chose to emphasize short-scene fantasy moves over actual martial arts skills. With that approach there's little need for a martial arts star like Zhao, but according to the credits the latter was highly involved in the production, filling more roles than just "actor". If the fantasy wire-fu and similar actions were done proficiently, I might overlook the lack of sophisticated fight scenes, considering that "Once Upon a Time in China" had lots of wire-work, too. Unfortunately, all of those scenes show a significant absence of experience and accordingly look cheap and underwhelming, especially when compared to any of the vastly superior movies from the 90s.

Additionally, the editing of the movie leaves the audience with many scenes that don't explain how things happened, like a character suddenly being in a chained stranglehold. We won't know how his opponent managed to do that, because that scene was either cut or never even shot.

The story just isn't interesting enough either, right from the start setting up a plot that tries to do the splits between scientific horror and super-powered martial arts, without giving either any room to get at least intriguing. Characters are forcefully inserted that are meant to provide drama without establishing why we should care about them other than "Look! It's a woman. And she's pretty. Don't you totally care what's going to happen to her?!". Aside of that, the usual elements are added in small bits (never enough to flesh out any single one of them), as you would recognize them from "Once Upon a Time in China" or any big-budget Chinese action movie: romance - comedy - sidekicks whose purpose is to make the protagonist look better - the rival who could be morally good but falls from grace - the dilemma of martial arts vs scientific progress - individual sacrifice for the greater good (the greater good bluntly being *China*, as usual) - the monstrously evil villain who plots against China (being a foreigner, as usual) - etc.

Again, it's due to the director's inexperience that none of those elements fall in place to provide good entertainment. It's just about barely enough to give an unassuming audience something to watch on TV on a lazy evening.

Atlantic Rim (2013 Video)

The god of cringe blessed this production fervently

[2/10 · 22 May 2017]

It is a rare thing that I would give only a single star in an IMDb review. Unlike most people who are writing these reviews, I have an awareness of how bad movies can get. You haven't seen the "worst movie of all time" (a shallow phrase I despise), if you haven't watched many dozens of extremely low budget productions. That said, although "Atlantic Rim" is far from being one of the worst movies of all time, I still cannot undo a feeling of embarrassment for my responsibility of ever so slightly increasing its rating, which is 1.7, at the moment. A more appropriate score might be a 2.5, though.

The writers, director and actors would have good reason to be ashamed of their involvement with this production. It's hard to know how much of the script was changed during production, on the whim of the producers or director. The dialog is sometimes of prepubescent quality, the events and action almost always are. Whenever the dialog was less irritating any positive effects were quickly undone by the incompetence of the director and editor(s).

My suspicion is that the director, Jared Cohn, is incapable of work any better than this. I have seen examples of his writing, acting and directing now, and they have all been in the cringe category of awful. I would advise people who're going to work with him to use utmost care. If anything good is to be taken from his example, it's that you can get a job in any field, regardless of your absence of skill or talent.

Watch this movie if you prefer your heroes extremely dimwitted, with the dialog to show for it. Also watch this if you prefer soldiers to do whatever they please and whenever they feel like, regardless of the commands given to them. The soldiers in this movie behave a lot like party-addicted, bullying teenagers, who are treating their commanders like spoiled, aggressive pupils might treat their teachers if they have absolutely no respect for their authority. According to the movie that behavior is absolutely fine, commanders will laud you for it and express their pride, as long as you're the best at your job.

The action, dialog and special effects are never interesting or engaging, but rather cringe inducing and confusing. Let me give you one example of "bad special effects" caused by utter lack of competence, rather than lack of money. In one scene we see the biggest monster stand up while leaving the ocean next to a beach. At least that was the idea. What we actually see is the ocean and the horizon meeting up in the very very far distance, which is also the place where the ankles of the monster rise up from the ocean. Yes, the person who made the special effects for this scene placed the ankles of the monster at the farthest end of the visible ocean. If you correlate the distance of its ankles with its size on screen, the monster would have been at least several miles high. In later scenes we're shown that it's actually rather around 50-100 m (or ~150-300 feet) high, while walking through streets. Money was not a factor here. This dire mismatch of size relation is the result of giving the special effects job to a person not remotely skillful enough for the profession.

The scenario described in the previous paragraph is exemplary for just about any part of the production of this movie. The people involved were fully incapable of predicting what the movie would look or feel like when finished. It also seems like they stay unaware of their mistakes and thus never learn from them.