kenny_wolfs Reviews

Valhalla Rising (2009)

Went into this with the wrong mindset

[2/10 · 12 June 2010]

Well, I downloaded this movie, thinking it would be a Viking action movie, something which is clearly lacking in the movie genre according to me. The beginning is fine, until One Eye, our protagonist escapes. After that this movie turns into a national geographic flick.

Yes, hardly any action happens, the audio is mostly the sound of wind. Yes, people on here are really looking for meaning, but all this movie is, is a visual overview of the beauty of nature. You can watch a lion chasing a zebra on National Geographic and then try to find the emptiness of life as the zebra's life is suddenly ended, and the director can claim that is what he wanted to express, but in reality you're just watching a nature documentary.

Did not like this movie at all, watched it at 1 AM, so I've had periods of nearly falling asleep, it has beautiful scenery I'll add, but it lacks a story, it lacks action, it lacks dialogue and it lacks a decent soundtrack. If you still like movies without all these features, then by any chance go watch Valhalla Rising, find some meaning where there hardly is none, and write a ravishing review for this site.

Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time (2010)

Prince of Parkour

[9/10 · 23 May 2010]

Just returned from the theatre where I watched the PoP-movie. I must start of by saying I am biased when reviewing this movie, but the PoP-trilogy is the only game I ever finished (apart from God of War I and FFX). All others made me lose interest after a few levels, so I absolutely love this series.

But apart from my gaming history, I really liked the movie. Does it contain a lot of depth? Does it contain the best worked out characters, Not really, so why a nine? Because that is not what one should expect from such a movie, which more drives on atmosphere, scenery and action.

In the beginning the movie starts a fun adventure, with drunk and dashing Dastan even reminding me a bit of Jack Sparrow. He loses this edge though later in the movie, when he turns into a more serious character out to save the world. The ostrich races also attribute to the light hearted atmosphere in the beginning of the movie since running ostriches are just plain cool and funny animals.

However, around 30 minutes in the movie, the real story begins with the time traveling dagger. These time travel effects are quite impressive, and I momentarily can't think how else you could have portrayed them in this movie. However, there are only four or five time transportations, which is kind of a shame since I expected more.

Another special effect are the parkour moves from the Prince of course. These are present throughout the entire movie, and even though sometimes it is a bit hard to follow what is happening, they stayed close to the game when it comes to the prince's moves.

The plot is quite predictable after around 45 minutes, but that doesn't bother me in these kinds of movies. These movies aren't really made for plot twists anyway. The only thing I didn't get is that they predicted the world would end if they released all the sands, but instead, the Prince is returned to before everything started, instead of the world ending. I didn't pay all attention at this point, so maybe it's clear if I rewatch the movie.

Last of all, I want to say something about Jake Gyllenhaal and Ben Kingsley. Ben puts a great performance here once again, from minute one he radiates something evil, although that could also have to do with the fact this is how evil Persians are portrayed now (bald men with eyeliner). I never really noticed Jake Gyllenhaal, but after this movie I have become a fan, especially in the first 30 minutes where he's playing the fun loving Dastan.

I didn't think this was a bad movie, but one should enter the theatre with the right mindset, sitting back for some mindless special effects action.

Omen IV: The Awakening (1991 TV Movie)

Devil, thy name is woman

[7/10 · 22 May 2010]

I would first like to say I mainly wrote this review because I feel a great unjustice is being done here by reviewers by many 2 star reviews. People basically use the star rating system without thinking too much. A one star movie, I have never even encountered a movie that was so bad in every aspect it deserved one star. I was also a bit surprised this movie has the overall same score as The Exorcist II, which I really consider the most unnecessary and silly movie ever (and still would not be a 1 star rating).

Now, on to the movie, like I said, don't believe the negative hype. It is an entertaining standard thriller movie. None of The Omen movies should ever be considered a horror movie, there's no real horror to it, the scariest thing about them to me always was the psychological thriller it had to be on the parents, who slightly start to believe their child is so evil, they are willing to kill it themselves. The torment of wondering whether you are crazy was always more scary than some freak accidents or a child staring to me. I'll admit, I'm missing that in this movie. The mother figure here seems to already hate her child at age 2, but that could just be my impression.

I also see that many people hate Antichrist Delia, and I don't know exactly why. I like her just as much as the character of Damien, and the fact she already knows she's better than everybody else and Satan's on her side makes her a very nice character to me. I understand why people prefer Damien though, he was more classic, he was that started it all. Just like Michael Jackson's This Is It would have been a great show, it could never live up to the Dangerous tour, since that was him at his high, and it was all still new to people than and a big hype. Just like Damien Thorne is the child that started it all, it is impossible to like another Antichrist child except for him. I liked Delia's attitude towards people though, if someone bullies her, she'll beat him with her lunch box (thank you for that tip Marilyn Manson) and make him turn out to be the bad guy. This not only shows her violent nature, but also her manipulative one.

Now, there were some bad things in this movie too, don't get me wrong. The New Age Nanny deserved to die IMO, and even worse than she did. The psychic fair was so silly, it deserved the "Carrie treatment" Delia gave it. Grotesque as that fire might have been, I did like the imagery of her walking out there, with part of the planet being a blazing fire. It reminded me of Damien in Omen II, leaving the Thorn museum which was burning behind him.

Now, at the very end, that's where it all goes wrong. It seems Delia is not the Antichrist, but she was carrying her twin, the real Antichrist, which was transplanted later in her mother's womb without mom knowing it. Yeah, that's what threw many people off I think, they should have just let Delia be the Antichrist, and her mother finding out that truth for real is just as scary as this useless plot twist.

Delia also got a "devil nanny" at the end, who should protect her, but since she appeared so late in the movie, she's rather useless. She gets shot in her second scene, refuses to bleed after a bullet going through her, and tumbles down the stairs. Why was this nanny in here, they might as well have used the "protective dog" which returns every Omen movie for this scene rather than quickly drag a new nanny in here.

Overall, this movie is OK, if you like religious horror you'll like this movie probably. If you're expecting gore or scares, you won't like this one, it lacks a bit in this compartment. The acting is only mediocre here, only Delia impressed me, but she seems to be hated on here, so maybe I'm wrong. If you don't know what to do one evening, download this movie, kick back, make some popcorn and watch it without thinking too deeply. Remember, overthinking and over-analyzing will ruin almost every movie, sometimes it's just entertainment.

Bloody Murder (2000 Video)

A Friday the 13th tribute that's OK, but not great

[6/10 · 29 July 2009]

Most people on here say that this is a clear rip off that should be sued, but I saw this movie more as some sort of tribute to 80-90's horror movies where a mass murderer with a mask goes on killing random teens. Why did I see it as a tribute, rather than a rip off? Because the movie manages to poke fun at those old classics, and doesn't take itself, or the genre, too seriously. The following two quotes are examples of the way they do so:

• We were watching Camp Slayer FOURTEEN (reference to the insane amount of sequels to these horror movies)

/ When Tobe remembers offending the current suspect, Jason

• Good God,I have offended a camp psycho, named Jason no less (a clear reference to FT13th)

No, the problem most people have with this movie, is that they started to watch it and immediately condemned it, since the story seems familiar. To a movie like this, the story isn't that important, as is the feeling you get from it. This is where the movie gets cut short a bit though. I believe most killings should have happened at night, while now, they happen during broad daylight, which somehow doesn't give it that creepy atmosphere. There are a few scare scenes, which are done by the book, and can make you jump up a little, which is basically what you are looking for in movies like this. In all honesty, the scare scenes were good enough, but there should have been plenty more to keep this feeling of fear prolonged.

The story is OK, I mean, it's a plain copy from Friday the 13th, but there are multiple candidates to actually be Trevor Moorehouse, and up until the last 15 minutes I was still doubting between a few characters who could do the honours, but that could be my overall ignorance.

All in all, you can enjoy this horror movie, it's not amazing or a classic. If you see it the way I did, a horror movie poking fun at those classics, you can enjoy it. If you're already yelling bloody murder (sorry, bad pun intended) about it being almost the same story as Friday the 13th, you won't enjoy it, and only end up being frustrated. It's basically about being well prepared to watch it...

Ice Queen (2005 Video)

The idea was nice though

[3/10 · 29 July 2009]

The reason I rented this video was because the cover seemed scary enough to me, a hideous woman, who somehow reminded me of Lordi's keyboard player, awakes from the ice and goes on a rampage. The movie started out nice though, since me and my friend have a little gag going around that there are three things that a good movie needs: a helicopter, breast and a midget (preferably one that gets kicked away, or kicks himself in the head). The first scene of the movie contained a helicopter, the second one contained Jennifer Hill in a wet t-shirt, and the fourth scene contained Jennifer putting it all out. Heck, I was honestly thinking this could be a good movie, and was the edge of my seat awaiting the midget.

After this, things went bad quickly. The Ice Queen looked pretty ugly, I'll give you that, but the horrible nonsense that she is put me off from the beginning. We are being told that she is a Homo Erectus, which still seems plausible. Now, it could be because I'm a High School teacher of History, and I might be more critical about historical incorrectness than others, but I do believe more people will hear their skin crawling when they claim the Homo Erectus (which only lived in Africa by the way) has a body temperature of -30°. I don't know if that's Celsius or Fahrenheit, but anyhow, it would mean that our ancestors had ice for blood. One could overlook that silly comment of the professor, but then he tells me that the Homo Erectus had the unseen power of being able to slash open its opponent, and freeze them from the inside out. When I heard this, I nearly fell from my chair, the idiocy and unrealism really are going over the top in this movie. Why does the Ice Queen need this type of power? She could just slash her opponents with her huge claws, and still be scary. Seeing how I'm a history teacher, I've had my fair share of 13 year old boys laughing about the name Homo Erectus like Beavis and Butthead, but those little pervs at least had a better idea of what the Homo Erectus was than the makers of this movie.

If this was all the silliness in the movie, one wouldn't mind so much, but the madness goes on. Not only did our ancestors have freezing powers, for some reason they have heat vision, which can be compared to the way "The Predator" looks at this world. At a certain point in the movie, she sees main character Johnny (Harmon Walsh) standing, and somehow his body turned colder than the walls, which seem to be on fire right now. This makes our Ice Queen fall in love with him, and I can tell you that this is the point of the movie, where you just stop trying to see it as a horror movie, and just accept the rest of the movie will be a comedy. Seeing the vicious Ice Queen biting on her 5 inch nail/claw as if she were a porn diva acting out a naughty 16 year old school girl just has to make you break out in laughter.

Now, on to the character of the Ice Queen, the only character that is not flat out cheesy, dumb or annoying. Some say they dislike the scream she makes, I liked that aspect of her. You could see she still was a beast and somehow it gave me the feeling she was afraid. That's one of the only good things done in this movie, somehow, you feel bad for the Ice Queen. She's not pure evil, she's just a creature put into an unfamiliar environment that is panic stricken, kinda the same thing as Cloverfield probably was.

********************* SPOILER - END OF THE MOVIE *********************

Now, I have to tell you about the end of the movie too. I was only finishing the movie since I wanted to see if the end was as ridiculous as the rest, and boy it was. Never have I seen such a stupid ending in a horror movie, and remember, Freddy Kreuger was killed initially because somebody didn't believe in him, while he was standing right in front of her. Now, the Ice Queen seems almost "get lucky with Johnny", but then he pulls her into the hot tub and she melts, and turns into a cheap plastic eyeball. Really, in this day and age, you should be able to make something better than that final prosthetic. When Jennifer Hill's rack isn't the most obvious fake prosthetic in your movie, something is plain wrong.

All in all, this movie is one of the most horrible horror movies ever made, but I gave it three stars, because the last 20-30 minutes were just so plain ridiculous that they made me laugh, and that means the movie entertained me, although not intentional.

The Hangover (2009)

More than expected

[9/10 · 25 July 2009]

I just returned from the theater where I saw "The Hangover", and I must admit, with what I saw from it first, I wouldn't have chosen it myself, but a very foxy lady (Italian, redhead, and a nice rack) asked me if I wanted to see that one, and any guy will know that if a girl like that asks you out, SHE chooses the movie. Awaiting her arrival, I met my cousin up front, and he told me he thought"The Hangover" was that chick flick. After just watching the film for 2 minutes, Bradley Cooper appeared on the screen and my date said "Oh God, he's so hot, that's the reason why I wanted to see the film". At this point, I didn't really think this movie was going to be something, but soon I had to review my opinion.

The humour in this movie for starters is of different levels. There is the sexual innuendo/teen-humour, there are crazy and absurd situations, there is some slapstick, basically, whatever humour you favour, this movie has got it. You'll laugh at some point in the film.

The beginning of the movie gives you a great feeling. It really somehow has that vibe of "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas", where you also had the feeling that you wanted to experience the same fun the actors in that movie had. You just feel like you're on a "magical ride" with them, and you regret not being there in real life.

The characters in this movie are really worked out nicely, both by the screenplay as well as the actors. Hot shot of the evening, Bradley Cooper, really gave me the impression like he was an incredible fun person to be around with, and I'd definitely want Phil (his character in the movie) to be my friend in real life. Zach Galifianakis (Alan) plays a great annoying little moron too. In the beginning of the movie you hate him, and you'd wish they dump him in the desert, but he manages to win you over by his at least good nature.

A nice addition to the movie is Ken Jeong who plays a (probably) gay leader of the Chinese mafia who seems obsessed by imitating Western (African-American) slang and manners. Normally I'm not too fond of Asian actors, but this one really give the movie extra humour.

Don't let a weak trailer keep you from seeing this movie. I've enjoyed it immensely, and had quite a few laughs, while I'm usually not the kind to break out in laughter.

Beneath Loch Ness (2001)

Delightfully retarded or source of immense frustration, there no gray area here...

[3/10 · 25 July 2009]

I have seen many people on here already complain about the bad acting and weak story. To be honest with you people, everything on the cover warns you for this, the storyline described at the back, the pictures accompanying are just screaming B-film, heck even C-film. So you can expect a bad plot full of clichés, cheesy lines and rigid acting. These type of films are not suited to find continuity loopholes, since you'll find far too many, and you're deriving yourself the entire movie pleasure by analyzing it. So, why did I decided to rent this movie after all, even though it clearly tried to warn me for this? Because I thought it would be fun for a rainy Sunday afternoon, see some monster shots, get a scare or too by something leaping out of the water, and when it's over, just get on with your daily lives.

However, despite me being ready to see a rather crappy movie, this one managed to disappoint me still. The monster isn't very well portrayed, you rarely see it well actually and because it's portrayed so horribly, it very rarely comes off scary. You also expect a water monster to leap out of the water very often, especially at Loch Ness, where the water is nearly black. The setting was excellent for getting a few scares from a huge beast leaping out of the darkness, but all in all, the monster jumps out of the water once or twice. Last of all, there is no excuse for casting something as ugly as Adria Dawn as a college girl in a movie where the actors themselves don't really matter.

So, this movie seems like a total disaster, but why did I give it 3/10 instead of the 1 it deserves? Because I was prepared for such horrible acting, and it contains some delightful retardedness. Some insanely stupid things that probably came off cool to the director at first, but is perceived by the audience as plain painful to watch. A nice example would be the random extra plot in the middle of the movie. Two colleagues are having a (verbal) fight, and the woman yells "Is this because of the divorce?". This has nothing to do with the story, comes out of the blue, and hardly anything later on derives from this new fact. Somehow you gotta enjoy that. Another thing which gave me the laughs, althoughunintended to be funny I think, is when the local fool (who has seen Nessie before) decides to go after him. Now, what does he take with him? Huge bombs, some sort of bazooka, maybe even something that could shoot huge amounts of poison so the monster gets killed, all good guesses, but he decides to kill an immense monster with a harpoon. How will he survive you ask? Well, he has put the Braveheart face paint on of course. I can imagine not everybody enjoys these scenes and gets a laugh out of it, and most elite internet movie watchers will get angry over this, rather than amused.

Another thing I liked, the team leader, Case, is such an arrogant ass in the movie, that you can only enjoy him, I do at least. A nice example of his arrogance is his reply to some Scottish fishermen in the middle of the night where he asks them "if the sheep have a headache", and of course the most cliché line for an arrogant bastard: "Who are you again?".

IN CONCLUSION Do not rent this movie unless you: a) can enjoy a movie that's so incredibly bad it just makes you laugh at some times b) you have a 8-12 year old kid, and you want to show him a "scary movie" that won't really give him nightmares. Really, this movie is ideal for a little kid to watch and give him the feeling he's watching a scary monster movie, but not for the serious adult.

Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs (2009)

Three's a crowd...

[8/10 · 25 July 2009]

Ice Age III was the long awaited sequel to the second Ice Age-movie. Long awaited at least by one of my dearest friends, who just gets a kick out of these kind of CG-animated movies. Due to time limits, we didn't get to see the movie until a few days ago, and I must say it kinda disappointed me.

I was unable to laugh the entire movie, the characters had all their best jokes in the first two movies I think, and they leave little entertainment value to me. Now, it is probably my problem, since these movies are not for me. However, my friend also told me, she had only smiled a few times during the movie, and usually she's belly laughing throughout these cartoons. Another thing we both agree on was that there was that Scrat appeared too often in this movie. He was best in the first movie where he got a little scene in the opening and ending of the movie, but in this movie, he appears in short scenes throughout the movie, and this is overkill in our opinion.

The plot in these movies is also painfully obvious after you've seen the first 15 minutes, at least to the adult eye.

My personal experience was not that positive but this does not mean it is a bad movie at all. I can appreciate the stunning graphics this movie offers, along with the nice voice acting, especially by Sid and Buck. Buck is also a new character that will be a favourite to many, but for me he did not work. This tough "jungle pirate" that believes fear is just a four letter word, has grown completely paranoia and has multiple personalities, much to the delight of other people in the theater.

The humour in this movie is described as being for kids and adults, but quite frankly, I don't think too many adults will enjoy this movie for the humour, most parents will be dragged to this movie by their children and have a nice time, but nothing more. However, this is an ideal movie to take your kids too, and give them a delightful afternoon for a relatively cheap buck in these times of economical crisis.

It was not for me, they could have quit after the second movie, but still 8/10

The Eye (2002)

The only scary part is, I spent one euro to rent this movie

[3/10 · 24 July 2009]

I came across this movie while watching "The Boogeyman" and I took the time to watch some of the extra parts on the DVD, in which the actors of that movie said they had recently seen a film that was scary beyond belief, called "The Eye". When at the local video rental, I saw they had The Eye and decided to rent it and give it a try. Ready to get scared my pants off, I pulled my knees against my chest and turned on the DVD player. However, the entire movie turned out to be a huge disappointment.

************** From this point on, some specific spoilers are given **************

Let me start out by saying I do not necessarily have something against Japanese movies or so, since I enjoyed Ringu (saw the English version) and The Grudge (saw the original Japenese version). The story in itself has been explained numerous times, a woman gets a coronal transplant and sees dead people now.

To me, a movie like this should include some scares, so that the spirits of the deceased people should at least frighten you and the main character (compare it to The Sixth Sense, where this was done nicely), this movie contained no scare at all. Another way this movie could turn into a true horror movie, is if the deceased people all have horrible stories to tell from their lives. Why these people died is unclear to us, apart from one boy who leaped out of a window, because he lost his rapport card. I have read on here that the very first ghost the Mun sees scared the hell out of many people. Let me give you a spoiler, the first thing she sees is an old woman in a hospital that says that she's cold, and then disappears. There is a succession of these visions, where the ghosts just walk by her, smile at her, have a friendly chat with her. Heck, the ghosts are much friendlier than most people I know, so I have no idea why she would be scared of them. No wait, I have told you a lie, there is one unfriendly ghost, which believes Mun has taken her place, and all of a sudden she leaps towards Mun and disappears when she's about 10 Cm away from her face. That is about the only scary part about the movie.

So the first half hour, you see Mun walk around with some friendly ghosts at her side, and she gets some visions about a room too. In part two, they find the room and it belonged to the girl who had the original gift, and committed suicide because of it, and now plagues our main character, Mun. All Mun has to do is make her mother say "I forgive you", and then she is plagued no more. Mun manages to do this in a mere 5 minutes thank God, and she can go home, where she embraces her gift.

I also see the acting is immensely appreciated on here. It's not bad acting, but nothing special. At a given point in the movie, Mun confesses to her doctor she sees dead people and starts to cry, only problem, during her cry scene she does not shed one tear. Heck, even the 10 year old boy in The Sixth Sense cried a river when he had to confess his gift.

That's about your whole movie, nothing scary about it. You won't have a feeling that you're afraid to go to sleep in the next half hour or so. Actually, the only reason why you won't be able to go to sleep in the next half hour, is because you took an involuntary nap throughout the movie. This movie should be classified under "romantic films", rather than under horror films. This movie mainly got its hype because Japanese horror is THE genre for the elite movie watcher now. But if you like to get scared, go rent another movie or "One Night in Chyna"