The movie tells the story of an ambitious "house keeper" of a CIA safe house in southern Afrika who wants to raise in ranks and become a CIA agent. However he is held back until the day a rouge agent is brought in for questioning. The house gets attacked and the house keeper has to flee with the agent, being targeted by the rouge agent, the misterious attackers, the South African police and getting no help by his people...
To list the positive aspects first: The acting of Ryan Raynolds and Denzel Washington is good - but somehow that was to be espected. The action shots are interesting but not as exciting as they could be.
The story however feels highly constructed, and in its essence forseeable. Also, there are some scenes that make absolutely no sense, for instance, why while car chasing do the bad guys first install their silencers before they start shooting? And why did they take them off, after using them in the attack previous to the car chase? Those scenes that make you question the logic are somewhat aclimatic, which is also not in the movies favour.
It is never boring but it is never so good as to be as exciting and interesting as other movies of this genre - take for example the current bond movies or the Bourne series.
In my opinion, if you want a light movie night with friends where you spend more time talking then serious watching, then this movie is all right - but for a serious movie night you can choose far better.
While I really like the settle press and media critique that this episode bears (hehe), the overall story is rather dull and additionally this episode looses more and more of its initial fun the more you re-watch it. This would make it totally balanced at neither good nor bad, but I do have a lot of fun watching Maggie in this one, and to the extend that it's possible for a cartoon baby, I feel like this is the first one that gives some well deserved focus on one of the last members of the famiily. Therefore: 6/10
One of the few episodes that I can still remember from my childhood (I used to watch this series when I was around 10~14 years, more as a pass-time than actually loving it, because - well - I was to young to get everything, I guess). While the first three episodes felt more like a continuous story from start to end, this is the first episode that already follows the typical setup of later simpsons episodes: We get an introductory story that actually has nothing to do with the main story (Mr. Burns party), except for one single binding element (the family love Homer witnesses from one of his co-worker, that fuels the entire second part (Homer wanting to change his family for better).
On the other side, however, the episode is rather atypical. Marge is the drunk, Homer is the one worried about their image and Lisa misbehaves (which was rather typical for the Simpsons Shorts). Homer selling the TV and wanting to pray before eating is probably the biggest break with his character. In the entire Simpsons context this feels rather strange. But reminding ourselves that this is just episode four, it is understandable that did not have that developed characteristic trades. Would this episode be shown in a later season, we would most definitely have Marge and Homer switch roles in this story.
But even given the short background we do already have, it's rather hypocritical of Homer being the one to judge both, their perceived family image (when he did not care about his personal image at all just in the previous episode) as well as the lack of love in the family (when he only spent time with his son for the first time after thinking his son is a genius, and stopping the second he finds out the truth just two episodes ago). Then again, this episode makes clear, that we are in the early 90s, where it was typical to reset the entire previous history at the beginning of the next episode, by having Homer know his boss so well, which he only met in the previous episode for the first time. Still, with Homer being content with the status quo the entire time, and just wanting a change once Marge gets accidentally drunk and Homer seeing a functional family for the first time, one might wonder why he doesn't try to work on himself and becomes role model instead of just judging and forcing his family, so even when disregarding everything else and taking the episode as a stand-alone story, the hipocracy is still there (even though much less visible).
There is, of course, a lot of settle sarcasm and irony in this episode, starting with Mr. Burns being a parody of Reagan, and ending with aversion therapy, where Dr. Marvin Monroe basically tells Homer that it's okey to hit his family until they comply. For me, the electroshock scene is probably one of the most iconic for a Simpsons episode, and it gets even more iconic as this scene is shown to Holly in the plane in Die Hard 2.
Other than that this episode hasn't too much to offer, for many it's considered one of the worst episodes, but in the end, I still really like it, so this totals up to a 6/10 points.
Over all a good movie with some twist I wasn't expecting. Most of it is obvious, though. Acting is good and it has a pretty atmospheric setting, which is nice. However, I felt remembered of Memento, and trying to play in that arena, this movie clearly isn't as good, as the original. Non the less, I think it's great to watch.
This is one of the movies that is really hard to rate for me, and I am torn between two sides. On the positives:
I liked the acting of this rather unknown cast. Acting for a normal movie is hard enough, and I believe that musicals are the supreme discipline, as you do not only have to have the ability to be a good actor, but you also need to both, be able to sing and dance and it has to sound good and look good. And here I have to say: They are excellent. All dance choreographies where really challenging, and had really funny ideas that made me smile a number of times. Comparing it to other musicals I have seen in the last year I have to say, those choreographies where even better than those in the beloved La La Land. Those choreographies where also well designed and scripted - for instance take the very first dance choreography in the high school - it is used to convey all the relationships of the different characters and their (hidden) feelings for each other, which I think was really great.
And speaking about great ideas - the entire movie is a absolutely great idea - when did you ever see a Christmas-High-School-Coming-of-Age Musical with Zombies? A really innovative idea, creating something new, which is really hard, in today's movie landscape.
The movie uses a lot of absurd ideas and interesting camera angles (e.g. the burning tire or a few of the deaths) and the humor that is conveyed using these angles was also really good. The movie doesn't take itself serious, there are a number of splatter scenes that are really funny, many things look unrealistic, because they avoid CGI and everything is made of practical effects (and those are simple) but with this I think they pay homage to the stage musical where you don't have CGI and use simple practical effects throughout - and also these things make the movie look even more funny.
And last but not least, the movie has a lot of soul, everybody seems to be really invested into this movie and giving his or her very best. It is a really charming movie.
If I point out that I have found a number of positive aspects that means that unfortunately I also have found some aspects that I consider negative:
Probably the most important one for me: The jokes that they made on purpose in movie where absolutely bad, and I couldn't laugh at any of the dialogues or one liners (e.g. "Oh no" - "What?" - "Justin Bieber is a zombie" - how is that even remotely funny?). I thought most of the jokes where either embarrassing, not funny at all or even annoying. And for me that really harms the movie.
Obviously Shaun of the Dead is an inspiration to this musical and it's even referenced. The parallels however are often really obvious and the problem with that is: Whenever Anna and the Apocalypse "copies" something we already know in Shaun of the Dead the later makes it so much better than this movie does. For instance they use the typical cut technique we know from Edgar Wright (e.g. in Worlds End where they order their beers and a water), but when they do, they do not try to convey a funny moment and therefore it seems unnecessary and wasted (for instance they use it in a random scene where the guys get into a car, which has no funny moment and does not compact something that needs to be shown).
Musicals are called musicals because they have music, and for me, a good musical has a song that captures me and that stays with me even after I've seen the movie for the first time (without rehering the soundtrack, etc.). Take La La Land, for instance. I've just seen that movie once, yet when I read the three words "City of Stars", I have an instant earworm that will stick with me the entire day. The Greatest Showman's "This is me" is equally catchy. With "Anna and the Apocalypse" there is no song that stood with me, no song that stood out, that captivated me, and a few weeks later if you'd play a song from this movie to me, I believe I wouldn't recognize them).
And when it comes to the genre of Zombie movies, this movie does not bring you anything new. And even for Zombie comedies there are a lot of better options to turn to. The only thing unique to this movie is it's setting at Christmas time, but they don't really cash in on the Christmas spirit, so other than the date and the decorations, this movie does not feel like a Christmas movie at all - take classics such as Home Alone, you can see that it is possible to convey a Christmas feeling even though your movie is not really about Christmas but cool action. And here - again - Anna and the Apocalypse falls short.
Last but not least - I am not really a musical fan. It's just not my genre. So convincing me is just as much harder, and in that aspect "La La Land" really did an excellent job, while all of the other current musicals didn't - this one included. I would have loved it to become a Christmas steady, I am always open for good new and unconventional Christmas movies (I feel like there are too few Christmas movies that I actually like - you can fill them into one evening, so I would love to have some additions to that list) but I am not sure if this movie could fill that spot - unfortunately.
Still I have to also honor all the positive aspects that I have mentioned, and I am sure that everyone who enjoys musicals will find this movie a great pick - it's no La La Land, no Shaun of the Dead and no Zombieland - but for a low budget independent movie with an entire cast of new inexperienced actors this movie this is really worth your time, so I would still recommend to give it a chance, and I am sure that it will find its fandom.
I've watched this because I was bored and it ran on television, and I remembered that I've seen the trailer for the second movie and that was so bad (but had an interesting idea), that I thought: Why not watch this?
And to get this out the way upfront: I hate found footage movies and this is best categorized as found footage. Also it is a low budget movie, by an unknown georgian-russian director with hardly any experience. The idea is pretty simple: film just the screen of one of the participants of a group skype call:
A group of teenager meet for a group skype call, which accidentally takes place at the anniversary of a suicide of one of their friends. Now, during the group chat our main protagonist gets messages from that dead girl, while some unknown person always joins the skype sessions. What was first thought of as a harmless prank by a troll seems to be the work of a skilled hacker targeting the group...
Easy premises, easy story. Does it work? Well, partly. I think the acting was okay, though the dialogues where partly way too much and too unbelievable. There are two scenes, that in my opinion where too overdone, totally overreaction and overacting. Also, some scenes where really boring and too long (all the time she starts searching something) - especially interesting: If she starts searching things, the chat automagically is mute, i.e. they stop talking? Really strange.
Also there are a few plot holes, like: why do they not use the smartphone to call each other, or to call help? Chatroulette, really? Why don't they simply turn of their computers all together, to get away, if they so desperately want to get away (of course, it wouldn't help the story and it wouldn't work for the found footage aspect - but it really makes you wonder...).
On the other hand I like the premises - it's something different to the classic camcorder or handycam shaky videos that you associate with found footage movies, and so I am not even that annoyed (I hate the constant shaky cam, the "selfi" parts where the camera operator turns the camera around to talk into it, the pointing the camera on the feet to give the feel of some amateur filming, etc.). That's refreshing. Additionally - and this is really important to me, someone that works as a computer scientist - they did not do any absurd stuff with IT - everything that happens seems plausible, and I also liked that they did not invent apps and websites that resemble actual apps and sites, but used real sites and apps to do their movie. This goes as far as that videos they used in the movie are real videos they uploaded to YouTube - and they are still there: www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhdblEqwoRg
Getting to the horror aspect of this movie: Well, I wasn't scared. At all. I do appreciate what they tried to do, but this did not work at all for me. There was also no gore, I feel like this is an "FSK 12" rating.
In the end I was struggling with a rating of 2 or 3. I went with 3, because 1) the director is rather unexperienced and unknown, 2) it's a low budget production and 3) it is a fresh and new idea for found footage, and the first time I actually enjoyed found footage. Even though the movie has a lot of problems I enjoyed it, and therefore I grant it 6/10 stars.
This movie was a long time on my bucket list, and finally there was a release of the uncut version on Blu-ray in Germany last year (there was only the R-rated verison on DVD available in Germany, even though the Cinema and VHS verison used to be the unrated cut!). Interesting movie that starts really weak, but then gets better and better. We first have Kate Miller (Angie Dickinson), the first murder victim and I did not enjoy this part of the movie at all. It's main part is the museum sequence, and though I get that there are some interesting ideas, that are conveied by her watching the lovers, the family, the kid that runs of, and the guy hitting at a woman, and how it is connected to what she is going through in her thoughts and emotionally. But in all it was too long and especially the chase scene is - though greatly filmed - not really getting anywhere, and adds some stupid elements to the movie - I mean, especially Kate - how stupid is she?
First she want's to get the attention of the guy, then she takes of her glove, to show off with her wedding ring? Naturally he walks away, so she follows without realizing that she looses her glove. Running through this museum we get the scene where he touches her shoulder with the glove and she sees it, but doesn't recognize that it is her glove? Then, only when walking away, and looking at the map she realizes that she is only wearing one glove? How much feelings does she have in her hands? So, she remembers that she took it off and mus have lost it, but not finding it, again she starts thinking and remembers him wearing it (great job, only figuring that out now!)
So she storms out, and throws away her other glove right at the steps (why? And how rude is that?), only to get lured into the taxi by this stranger waving her other glove. So because she wants it back, so gets to him (regardless that she just threw out her other glove, so she would still be ending up with only one glove?! They start making out in the Taxi and at his home, and when she wakes up, she get's all dressed, writes a note, we have a lot of situations where she looks at her hand - all of a sudden she realizes that she is not wearing any panties (really?! Wtf is wrong with the sensitivity of your skin, lady?!), so she searches his appartment, does not find it, then remembers that she dropped it at the Taxi so it's probably still there, she puts on all her other jewlery except her ring, which until now she did not realize was missing, goes into the elevator, drives down, then realizes that she is missing her ring, thinks about where she could have left it, only to remember that it was besides her watch in his appartment, so she drives back up again.
How stupid is she?
And then there are silly coincidences that actually make no sense
We see the killer, he sees how she drives down with the elevator, but decides to stay just where he is, in case she comes back up - and because she forgot her ring, she does? And runs into him standing there, ready with his razor blade?!
This scene in my oppinion - as some others - are just lazy script writing. They needed a situation, so they created one without thinking two steps ahead.
However from there on I consider it to get better - the scene where Liz Blake (Nancy Allen) is introduced and meets with Kate Miller in the elevator has some ingeniouty in it, and is fun to watch and to experience. Of course there are minor things that don't add up, but Nancy Allen is not only a far better actress, also her character is far more interesting and smart, and with her also the movie picks up the pace and adds some interesting and thrilling scenes, right up to the final, where we see a lot of her that is really beautiful :)
On the downsides, however, I did not enjoy some prejedices the movie proclaims. Take for instance the "punks" - of course they are all black no-goods that assult beautiful women out of nowhere and try to rape her. Of course, the black police officer does not believe a word, of course anyone wanting a sex change must be a psychopath. Not cool. Even for a movie that is from the 1980s, I think it is a bit too much. But okey. Those are only side effects and nothing the movie proclaims as one of its main thesises.
So to sum up, it starts slow and bad, I did not like the acting of Angie Dickinson so much, as well as her character - but it gets better with Nancy Allen, who is great in all departments. Of course we also have a strong Michael Caine, and a believable sidekick with joung Keith Gordon as Peter Miller, the son of Kate. And Dennis Franz, who plays a typical - but in it's acting good and believable - detective. In the second half the movie gets really interesting, we have a lot of scenes that remind me of old Hitchcock movies, but we also have a number of Giallo references, kind of a: "What if Hitchcock had shot Gialli?" sort of movie. And I enjoyed that part.
This movie is hardly critizied (at least in the German community), so this review will be a bit longer, because in many parts I disagree, even though I think there is a lot wrong. First of, I have to admit I dont like adventure movies, so movies like National Treasure, Indiana Jones and the Mummy trillogy are not my piece of cake; I haven't even fully watched the 1999 Mummy yet, so why did I go to the cinema at all? First: Tom Cruise, second: Jake Johnson (I love him as Nick Miller in the sitcom New Gril), and third: I liked the trailer. So my interest was peaked. Still not liking adventure movies I was also skeptic.
And in the beginning, my skepticisim was met: The entire frame story, introducing Nick (Tom Cruise) and Chris (Jake Johnson) and describing how they meet Jennifer (Annabelle Wallis) and how it comes that those three start recovering a sarcophagus - what a load of b... This is not realistic at all, and therefore I cannot believe it; if it was a comedy, okey (and I wasn't so sure that it's not going to be, because in the beginning it surely all pointed in that direction); but for a serious movie? At least I expect som serious story.
The first thing that was interesting to me was the actual finding of the sarcophagus; it really looked cool, they had some cool ideas like with the mercury, the mechanism, and the spiders, and the birds, etc. Why however Nick and Chris can actually abandon their job and fly with Jennifer and the sarcophagus to London? Again - story is not believable. And the logics behind the character Henry (Russel Crow) is absolutely beyond me - no that makes no sense at all! I mean seriously? We dig up a many thousand years old mummy and a some hundred yeras old templar, revive the mummy, give her the weapon to release the ultimate evil, so that we can fight it? Seriously? Why don't just put her back in the sarcophagus, fill it up with mercury again, and let her rott for eternity in a save space as this base where he is operating from is said to be?!
But we have already established this: The framing story is at best average.
And this is the most sadest thing, because the rest of the movie does a lot right - not everything, but I liked a lot of things, starting with the look. When looking at promotional pictures I laughed, because seriously? Sofia Boutella (I absolutely loved her in Star Trek Beyond as Jaylah!!!) in sexy poses being the scary mummy? Not really. But! In the movie she isn't. She eventually gets there, but it's a long journey from starting out as a corpse that can bearly crawl, into various stages of half-humanoid with a lot of wholes in her face and everywhere, up to the latests scenes, where she regains her full looks. And that's pretty cool. Also, her powers are great I loved her kiss that sucked out the live of others, turning them into zombies while simultaneously making her stronger. So when it comes to the costume, makeup, and effects (including CGI), I really liked the movie. I also enjoyed the action scenes, they where pretty well done, and I had fun watching them. When it comes to acting, both Tom Cruise and Sofia Boutella do a great job. Also Russel Corw is as good as expected (but more to him later). Jake Johnson plays the role that I expected and that I love. However, I somehow found it not fitting into the general tone of the movie. Especially in the beginning I found him to be a bit annoying; however his later role I somewhat liked, expecially taking in the fact that in New Girl he's also obsessed with this. I mean the zombies - in New Girl he always wants to write his zombie novel - and now in the Mummy he gets to play one. That is pretty neat. But all in all he's just the side kick, sometimes annoying, sometimes neat, but until the end, he is not really relevant for this story at all - and even in the end, you could have found other ways; so I am a bit ambivalent about his role. Non the less, I like Jake Johnson :D
Whom I did not like at all was Annabelle Wallis. She's just means to an end, but other than taht totally irrelevant (as a character), just tagging along all the time, not funny, not interesting, not tough and able to defend her self, not intelligent, nothing. There isn't even any chemistry between her and Tom Cruise, which is why even a main plot line does not really work as it should have. So, all in all, her character could have been written better, she could have had more story impact - I mean, she's there, isn't she? And also, I think Annabelle Wallis was the possibly worst cast. She's however not irrelevant, because there is one important factor she adds to the story.
Besides this I however liked the cast (a bit more of Johnsen would have been nice, but yeah) and I think they did a good job. Another thing I really liked: the genre. I spent some time in the beginning explaining how I dislike adventure movies; well: This one starts out to be an adventure movie with some comedy scenes, but overall it is a rather dark movie, which besides action also offers some horror-elements, such as jump scares, dark and spooky creatures, and an overall dark tone. I liked that - today it might sound silly, but the mummy movies used to be horror movies from the black and white era, and even with color TV the mummy was used, e.g. by the Hammer studios as horror movie creature. So somehow this is kind of a "back to the roots" thing. Not entirely, it is also an action movie and a bit of adventure, but still.
Let's get back to Russel Crow. He is playing an interesting character, and while introducing it, I rememberd reading about the Dark Universe that Universal wants to create - something similar to MCU or DCEU but with horror movie villans (such as Dracula, Frankenstein, Wolfman, etc.); all these will get new movies, and they will have some combining elements - apparently that is Russel Crows character Henry. All in all not bad, the scenery was also nice, you are not pushed into "hey look, our horror universe", it's quite settle, but if you know it, you'll see it (and it is not to be like in the comic movies - we won't have Dracula fighting next to Frankenstein and the Wolfman, having a war with the Invisible Man and Frankensteins Bride, or anything - all movies will stand alone - but there will be a combining component: Henry(?)). So, yes, I liked the idea - BUT: what the movies shows about Henry was - for my taste - far too much. It does not have anything to do with the main story, it totally digresses, and therefore does not fit in. Better they would have left it with the short pointers from the beginning where we meet him.
The end was suprising, and therefore good. I thought it would end the way it was forseen Tom Cruise breakes the stone, the Mummy cannot do anything, maybe the curse breaks while doing so, and in the end, they find a way of destroying her - probably with the mercury; but after Nick doing what he did I thought: Wow, and now?! - I wished the effect of his deeds would have gotten a bit more screen time - what follows was relatively short.
But all in all I was entertained, even though I wasn't that well (my contacts where itching and my 3D glasses at cinema were crooked). The movie does have some lenghty parts, but it did deliver more than I expected and I had a nice evening at the cinema. Most of the negatives I can condone - I have seen much worse. It's nothing you'd need to have seen in cinemas, but it's a nice to watch movie. I am excited about how this will go on and how the Dark Universe will further unfold - 2019 we'll get the next installment: The Bride of Frankenstein :)
For me, this movie is hard to rate. There are different aspects that I really liked, but at the same time a number of aspects that I disliked.
What I liked:
- The psychodelic aspects of the movie, the crazy colorful lightning, the strange surreal subworlds, such as the water hole in the beginning, the cellars, the inbetween floors.
- The nightmare-like flair
- Perfect acting of part of the ensemble (i.e. Irene Miracle, Alida Valli, Sacha Pitoëff)
- Some of the strange scenes that this movie uses
- The ingenious soundtrack that leaps from classic to gothic rock; pretty great!
What I disliked:
- The sometimes really slow pace, that in some cases tend to boredom
- The story telling in it self; some scenes seem to be arbitrary and do not add anything to the movie, neither for the story nor for the esthetics. Especially while watching it the first time I felt a bit lost sometimes and wondered what has happend and why and why this is in any way important.
- The bad acting of some of the cast (i.e. Veronica Lazar, Leigh McCloskey, or Elenora Giorgi)
- The End (the transformation to "Death"... well... for 1980 that could have been done much better)
So all in all, I am torn between the greatness of this movie on the one side - the camera is ingenious, the music is great, parts of the acting is great some of the scenes are thrilling as hell - and on the other side some scenes that where boring, made no sense or consisted of bad acting.
It is better than average, so not a 5/10 but also not as great as it could be, which is why I ended up with a 6/10. (In comparison: 4 Flies: 6/10, Crystal Plumage: 7/10, Opera: 8/10).
I thought it had a great start, you didn't really know what's happening and what to expect (didn't read the book). But going on, the movie developed typical stereotypes:
It's in this pattern non-different to many other movies that just came out (Hunger Games, Divergent, etc.), but in a more general sense follows a lot of movies. So arround the middle I got pretty bored, as the yet original start became more and more transparent with no supprises at all. Very unfortunate, could have been a great movie, if it had tried something new.
Btw. I didn't read the book, so my short review does not take that into consideration.
Because I did it with the first two movies: The original title アウトレイジ 最終章, is finally a bit different - phonetically "Autoreiji Saishōshō", so not two English words, written in Japanese and pronounced totally strange - "Saishōshō" litterally means "Last chapter" (as does coda in music - so good translation there!), and it is the final installment in the Outrage movie series. The best things come in threes?
Well... at least I did not like this movie as much as I liked the first two movies, and that for a couple of reasons:
First, the story is far less interesting than the other two are: Otomo is living in exile, on the one hand because of a certain killing he did in the previous movie and second because after defeating the Sanno-kai, the Hanabishi-kai started executing the former Sanno-kai officials. Otomo builds up a new crime ring in Korea, however, when one of Otomos subordinates gets killed by a Hanabishi man on holiday, Otomo returns to Japan to settle the scores.
As you might imagine, this time the movie is pretty straight forward: Otomo returns to clean up. Different to the first two movies where it was a power play and different characters all followed their own internal motivations that only got unfolded slowly, leading to quite a few "aha" and even some shocking "i didn't expect that" scenes, this time, there was just one scene that I didn't see coming.
However, even though the story is straight forward, I somehow felt it harder to follow. And to be fair: I've watched all of these movies in original soundtrack with subtitles, so this is probably a contributing factor. However, I felt like in the first two movies the different characters where much more invested in, so you really knew who was working for whom and what was actually happening. Here, I felt, most things where conveyed in dialog, rather than in seeing the people interacting, so I somehow struggled to understand who was doing what with whom. Still, somehow I felt that it wasn't that big of a deal because I wasn't missing out on anything major.
Also I felt this movie did not add anything new to the world of Outrage - in the first movie we had the internal power play, the intrigues, the way these people treat each other and how one can rise and fall. In the second movie we had the revenge theme, as well as the external wars and in addition the tie ins with politics and the police.
And the third? Well it's a bit of the first and the second. Nothing new, nothing interesting that is explored. And also in the department of violence this movie is far less interesting than the other two movies who had far more awful killings and tortures, things that made you grit your teeth. Coda brings nothing new to the table.
What I liked, however, was the weariness that Takeshi Kitanos character Otomo exuded. You really feel his fatigue, his reluctance to return to Japan, and his retirement-like life in Korea, and this makes the ending so much more interesting. And of course, there is the absolutely captivating ending, that was really good.
Still, for me its the least favorite movie out of the Trilogy, with the second being the best.
I am quite a Liam Neeson fan since I actively took notice of this actor due to his Qui-gon Jin role which was one of the only good things about Episode I. I've since then seen over 20 movies with him, and most of them are probably a tad better rated just because I like his character.
So I was really looking forward to this movie for a long time - Liam Neeson staring in an action movie against nature, in a nearly one-man-show, with a lot of positive reviews from people who've already seen this movie. Now that's got to be good doesn't it?
Well... the movie starts off really great. We have some workers doing seasonal work at an oil station in Alaska, which is not only a rough place location-wise, but also from the people. Liam Neesons character John Ottway is a hunter who's task is to guard the workers from wild animals. On their way back home however the plane crashes in the mountains, and only a hand full survive. The first survivors succumb to their wounds but soon they find themselves facing another enemy, that is picking the survivors for killing one after the other: A pack of wolves.
Liam Neesons character gets a really good background story, that makes his character interesting: He has lost everything and given up on live already, but when thrown into this live threatening situation his survival instincts kick in. There is something secretive in his character and we get to learn this while the movie enfolds. This makes the entire first half of the movie really interesting. Also they have a great location, with stunning pictures, a really high quality camera, and good performances, which I really enjoyed a lot. There is good chemistry between all the surviving characters which are totally different in style and believes, providing some room for arguments.
However, on the other side there where a few things I disliked. First of: The wolves, that hardly look anything like wolves. Here we get really cheap CGI and as the movie maker probably knew, most of the wolf attack scenes are in the dark and with hectic camera so you only see glimpses of the wolf. However I don't really enjoy shaky cams and rapid movements through hectic editing, so all in all this took a lot of excitement out of the scene because you actually do not see what happens but keep pondering about the few glimpses you get, while the action sequence is still going on. Also, the behavior of the pack of wolves is totally atypical: They don't hunt a group of men that are capable to defend them selves over days just for sports?
Also, during the movie the physical accuracy gets smaller and smaller - with the cliff jumping scene being the worst part of it. If you find yourself thinking: Well that's not realistic at all, that's plain idiotic, your brain gets occupied by other things than merging into the plot of the movie. And there are a number of these little things (like Ottway finding his letter after the crash which has been for hours in the snow but is still in excellent condition, or all the guys sleeping and not hearing how the one guy standing guard is taken by wolves just a couple of meters away, etc.), as well as movie mistakes (the letter has an re- and disappearing coffee stain throughout the movie).
In the end we get a 2hrs movie that feels really long and doesn't add anything new to the typical man vs nature survival movie (such as The Edge or the Mountain between Us, which I actually liked a bit better), that starts of really great but in the end gets actually pretty unrealistic and boring. And that's really sad, because they have some great scenes, really wonderful images, and a good Liam Neeson. But especially with high expectations that I had, this movie was mostly rather disappointing to me. It's still a solid movie, though.
A classic with a motif that is often been adopted since - creepy kids that kill all their parents and try to live on their own; in away this was lastly depicted in American Horror Story: Hotel, with the School-Sidestroy-Arc.
That is definitely something to take into account; as is the fact, that over the time it has gained a certain cult status (it even inspired the name of the Band KoRn as well as one of their song titles "Children of the KoRn"), despite the really low budget this film was produced on.
It is that low budget that in the end invited so much negative criticism: The bad, really cheesy graphics effects, the rushed ending, the bad acting by some actors. Story-wise it is - on the other hand - really strong. It is mostly suspense, and less explicit graphics, it had an - for that time - inspired new idea, it paved the way for children as the evil creatures of horror movies; all points to take into consideration. And talking about bad actors: There are also really good ones, such as Linda Hamilton, who seems to be too good (and kind of untapped as she is capable of so much more) to be in this movie.
On the other hand, however, from a today's viewers standpoint, it has aged really badly. Comparing it to movies such as Orphan or Insidious, the kids are completely tame and not at all frightening, the dialogues are a bit dated and feel strange, and the suspense is - for today's standards - much less frightening and lean more towards the boring side of things.
So in the end I am torn between a high rating that deserves a cult classic that has inspired many other movies to come and the low rating of a dated movie that leans towards being a bit boring and cheesy. I still believe it is worth at least having seen it once. So I'll grade it with an average 3/5
I guess nobody needed this move. I am not a big fan of the original, I did not see any point in doing a remake.
I have to say, however, that I was positively suprised. Kevin Hart isn't as anyoing as he is in most of his other movies, Dwayne Johnson plays really good, and Karen Gillian was also really great. I especially loved how those managed to capture the essence of their real life counterparts that we encountered in the beginning of the movie.
The story however has nothing interesting. I loved the end though - I expected a cheesy love story end, but got something different. Good job!
This feature film length documentary is a collage of scenes that where filmed during creation of the movie "The Boondock Saints", which is a pretty interesting but also pretty depressing story, about the rise and downfall of Troy Duffy, the director and writer of the cult classic.
Starting out as a bar tender he meets Harvey Weinstein and that guy is so convinced by Duffy first apperences that he not only buys the script, but also offers Duffy 15 million dollars to create it, and signs Duffys band and even buys the bar Duffy worked in, and made Duffy a co-owner. If he'd only known better. As it turns out, Duffy is so sure of himself, that he has no problems dissing everybody, his actors, his co-workers, his producers and even his friends and family. This paired with his alcohoism - (quote) "I get drunk at night, wake up the next morning hung over, go into those meetings in my overalls, and they're all wearing suits." - leads to his downfall: His funds are taken away, Harvey Weinstein does everything to make sure his movie doesn't sell and in the end, he signs a shitty deal for having his movie shown in five cinemas in whole USA for one week! The end of it: The deal did not include any shares for the home video release, so practically at the end he got nothing and since then has a hard time even finding a job in the movie industry.
While showing this, one of course gets a totally different perspective of what went on behind the scenes of this movie. Wow. However, for me it also showed how pitty some people (Harvey Weinstein, the owner of Miramax) can be, fighting a guy he had some disagreements with - which even leads up to the question if he was in any way responsible for an assult on Duffys life (if it wasn't anybody of the entire crew who all had plenty of reasons for it themselves).
All in all it is a pretty interesting documentary, although I wouldn't call it a documentary in the traditional sense, but rather a collage of behind-the-movie scenes, as there is no narration and hardly any context given; rather the opposite - from the beginning you get thrown in into raw footage that someway inbetween the first days of producing the videos Duffy thought would be a good idea, because from his perspective movie history was written (because in the end we would have gotten the classic dish-washer -> millionair story if he hadn't screwed it up). Now and then there is a textcard or subtitle telling us something like "beginning of shooting", etc. but that is it. No narrator from the off, most of the times even no talking to the camera but rather something like blairwitch-project - a found footage film, so to speak, without the cameraman ever turning the camera arround. Which is somewhat crazy, because we get to see some really fucked-up scenes that no one in his right mind would want himself to be seen in.
To me the found footage style is a bit displeasing which is why I the rating is not as high as it could be. Other than that, it was really interesting, eye-opening, and also disturbing if you like the movie...
Laika Entertainment - after doing a number of contract works beforehand, with the best probably being "A Corpse Bride" for Tim Burton - is a studio that has specialized on the old artform of stop motion animation movies. Given our current times, this seems to be an incredible amount of work that could have easily been done using a few computers. However, these guys go through the crazy amount of work of first doing animated shots to scetch up the movie, then empoly a number of designers to scetch out the chracters, giving these to sculptures who acutally build DVD-Keepcase-sized puppets that are movable in everywhich way needed, with replacable faces so up to 250000 faces with different facial expressions can be created; carpenters, electricians etc. then build miniature sets for the puppets, and when finally being able to shot, they actually have to create each frame of a 25 frames per second movie by hand. A while ago I've read in an article about Laika that each minute of a movie, takes a week's work of just shooting, errors therefore are extremely expensive and hard to fix and at the end, Laika runs out with approximately +/- $0 USD.
So what other reasons are there to create such a movie, other than being a total movie buff and loving what you do? And that is what you realize when watching the movies and making ofs. This insane amount of detail, as well as lovely stories worth telling make great movies.
I've already seen "Boxtrolls" (7/10) and "Kubo" (8/10), which I both really loved, and sames goes for ParaNorman. However comparing all three movies with oneanother I have to say that ParaNorman is slightly worse than the other two.
When it comes to "Boxtrolls" we had a nice idea for a story that was overall well told - but not as great compared to "Kubo". Therefore it had lovelyer figures that where really cute. "Kubo" did not point that much in the cuteness department but storywise it was great and it really had you emotionally invested.
Taking both into account, "ParaNorman" unfortunately is behinde them in all departments. That does not mean the movie is bad - it isn't. It again has a great and lovely story, nice animated figures and good overall story telling; but in comparison it's simply just not at the level of the other two, so this is why from me it only gets (6/10).
That being said, we get not only a nice movie, but also in parts funny parody on horror movies, so all in all I really enjoyed this movie!
Ignoring the first aired episode (the Christmas special) and bearing in mind that the series ought to be started off with what ended to be episode 13, Homer's Odyssey is the first episode that enlarges the Simpsons universe. We not only get new characters introduced (such as the twins Sherri and Terri, Chief Wiggum or Otto Man, the school bus driver), but with the class field trip we also visit the power plant the first time, Blinky can be seen and we learn that Bart really want's a tattoo (which he actually got in the eight first episode). Also interesting: In this episode Smithers is black for the first and only time.*
Besides this, after the last one being Bart-centric, this one's Homer-centric, and not only shows the heights but also the depths that Homer can go through (e.g. by stealing Barts piggy-bank or trying to kill himself).
Even though I like the general idea of the episode, overall I didn't have too much fun with that episode. The jokes are rather dull and uninspired, who hasn't seen jokes like someone on the way to kill himself complaining about something else that could have killed him on the way? And in the end I really disliked the spinelessness with which Homer is shown at the end of the episode, knowing the disappointment he will cause. While the message is still clear and valid (i.e. most peoples integrity has a price tag), I just felt that in this episode it was a bit to dully conveyed.
So in the end, waying in positives and negatives, again I have to say that this episode holds the balance, ending up with 5/10 points.
*) PS: Again some trivia fact: If you ever wondered why: The coloring wasn't decided by the creators and story tellers, but the coloring department could decide themselves and did so randomly when it came to skin color. They felt like Smithers being black; however, character-wise it was clear that Smithers would have an psychopathic personality with an homoerotic component towards Mr. Burns; and they not only felt that the color choice in this case would not only ruin the personality they've planed for Smithers but also be a bit to much that was unloaded on Smithers. Thus the change.
I'm giving this cult classic television series another spin, starting off from the beginning (and also redoing my ratings up to now). So here we go:
The Simpsons Roasting on an Open Fire is, as the title card reads, a Christmas Special, and it may seem rather strange, that a television series starts with a Christmas special. To understand this, you need to know two things:
Firstly, this wasn't actually supposed to be the first episode. The first episode produced, was S01E13, Some Enchanted Evening. However, a workprint test screening was received overall poorly, enforcing a long rework of the entire first season that took around half a year. Now, having to air in mid December, the decision was made to grab Episode 8 of that season for premiering.
Secondly, the Simpsons where already well known. It was in 1985 that comic artist Matt Groening was asked to do an animated short series for the Tracey Ullman Show, a ~30-minute long sketch comedy show, to be used as a ~1 minute long "bumper" before and after the commercial break. Groening initially wanted to use his comic series "Life in Hell" but when he learned, that he would actually loose all intellectual property rights, he came up with a plan B: The Simpsons, which - as rumor has it - was developed in 15 minutes in front of the office of producer James L. Brooks, just before pitching the idea. It wasn't the first (and in the beginning not the only) animated short that aired as advertisement bumper in the show that started in April 1987, but it was the one that got most attention and by the second season, all other cartoons were canceled and The Simpsons became the exclusive short series in that show. After the third season, that ended in May 1989, the Simpsons where spun off into a standalone half-hour series.
Taking these two facts into consideration makes it clear, how they could start off with a Christmas Special, but it also puts a lot of undeserved praise into better context. Many point out how this first episode already established so many places & figures and their characteristics right from the get-go (e.g. Skinner, Ned Flanders, Patty & Selma, Moe, Barney, Mr. Burns, Smithers, Milhouse and Grandpa, Moe's tavern, the power plant, Bart prank-calling Moe, etc.). If, however you watch them in production order, you will see, that the Simpsons started out as any other series; only Moe, Moe's Tavern and the Pranks where introduced in the original first episode. And other characters get introduced gradually over the next episodes, not all at once and some with large differences in the beginning (e.g. Milhouse being black-haired, or Smithers initially being black), so that this episode had already a rather rich background to fetch ideas from and build upon.
So ignoring this aspect, this episode has rather little to offer. The drawings are still a bit clumsy, the story not that original, there is little humor, no real sassy social remars and the dialogues rather dull. On the plus side, however, it is a heart warming story that has a nice happy end, and it manages to bring you into a Christmas spirit, even if you watch it in the summer.
Starting at 5/10 and looking at all the pros and cons, in the end, this episode is rather balanced out, leaving it at 5/10 points over all.
This movie was actually a suprise for me, because I would have expected it to be much worse than it turned out to be. However I have to say first, that I do not know the original series this movie is (hardly?) based on, so I will not be able to compare.
However, I was entertained. The story is all right it has some interesting moments, it is not in its entirety forseeable and besides infantil jokes about sex, male close and a rather idiotic depicted Jon Baker (played by Dax Shepard), it even has some funny inovative quotes that I enjoyed.
Also I think Michael Peña is a sympathetic actor, and so I liked his role as "Punch", he has a certain kind of smartness about himself and they added it to his role - that was interesting, because judging just by the trailer both appear to be idiots and you'd expect something horrible - oh and while I am mentioning the trailers - I loved that actually hardly joke from the trailer actually ended up in the movie - therefore there are no spoilers a number of scenes that you thought you knew actually turned out different.
But besides that, the story is rather mediocre, the characters stay shallow, 80% of the jokes aren't really funny, and a lot of story lines where forseeable. Also it often reminded me of a bad immitaiton of the Bad Boys movies - and compared to those this is a cruel joke.
So this movie is neither entirely good, nor entirely bad. And therefore after long consideration I settled with the exact middle. There are far worse movies, but there are also better. If they show it on TV and nothing else is on, you wouldn't go wrong with this, but whenever you can do something better, you'd better do that ;)
In a prologue scene this movie starts by introducing the main characters an our team: A special task force that operates outside of the law and is supported by bleeding edge high tech gadgets, that allow them to infiltrate buildings without problems and leave as fast as they came, leaving no traces for the police to find.
We then get the background story of our main protagonist James Silva, portrayed by Mark Wahlberg, as timelapse in the opening titles, and then the story finally starts: Our main setting is Asia, we have Silvas team on a new mission - a raid goes totally wrong and Silva is extremely hard and unfair with his team (which he is the entire time from this point on). While at the US embassy from where the team operates, they get a visit from a local (portrayed by Iko Uwais) who has some important information for the team, that makes them want to dirve 22 miles through the city towards an airport. To do so they terminate their contracts and call out the "overwatch" operation - a voice over explains: Now our team is stateless and therefore they become something higher, something special, something overly patriotic. And of course these 22 miles become running the gauntlet....
I was looking really forward to this movie from the very first trailer, and I was totally in the mood for this movie as I was already watching M:I 1-6 and The Equalizer one and two, so I was in the mood for a good action movie. I also loved the premises: An paramilitary operation team operating in a foreign country being outnumbered while a catastrophe emerges - that reminds me of movies such as Black Hawk Down or 13 Hours which are two of my most favorite movies.
The action scenes on this movie are pretty realistic, it seems reasonable what each character can bear unless they break down (much better than most other action movies), the wounds look realistik and our team gets cut down one by one pretty fast. The action isn't reduced to only shootings and fast car chases, but also include man to man fights, and of course Iko Uwais is the guy that stands out most, who will show us some pretty crazy moves and fighting choreographies. These aspects as well as the question what this movie is probably aiming at story-wise make this movie really interesting to watch and also pretty entertaining.
However, the story is also the strongest negative aspect: It is incredible muddled, and many things have to be explained with an voice over from the off, so that the viewer gets whats actually going on. Also there is absolutely no character development, and the crew stays as shallow as possible, making nearly everybody replaceable. Therefore you also don't have any sympathies towards any of the characters, allowing for no emotional bonds to evolve and ultimately in the end you don't care about any of the characters dying, steeling those scenes the dramatic effect they should have had on the viewer. And even for the main character we hardly know anything, except for the view pointers in the opening titles, but that's not enough and even worse: His character is the most exaggerated and therefore does he not only become unsympathetic with the viewer but also unbelievable.
To add to the confusion, a number of story elements are told either via an interview with Silvas (that seems to be taking place in the future), or by cutting either into a top secret hight tech operation center, or an Russian aircraft (it is not explained why). These cuts are both unnecessary and often also don't bare any logic, and you could have left them out entirely and the movie would have still functioned. Even in these scenes with again high ranking actors such as John Malkovich, non of the characters is essential in any way and totally replaceable. And most of the dialogues either consist of exchanging hostilities or of technobabble.
And even though Uwais is great, after the first fighting scenes one will be pretty disappointed because most of the fighting takes place in the dark and additionally there is a lot of cuts, so that a lot of fun is taken out of these scenes.
And then there is the finale, which to me was a kick in the teeth. The resolution seems so artificially constructed, stupid and is also full of logic holes that it takes away a lot of the fun, as you start to believe that the filmmakers question your intelligence. Worst of all, it's an open end that seems to be made for a second part. In no way was this satisfying.
This movie had great potential but wastes it entirely.
It's a pretty decent comedy. Nothing special, not too funny, but also not too bad. Mark Wahlberg is okey, Will Ferrell is not my favorite actor and of John Lithgow I've seen far better. However, Mel Gibson is pretty cool, he's a definite win for this movie.
The story is also quite nice, and fit's into the christmas spirit, so all in all a nice watch, though no must see and also nothing worth going to the cinema for.
Good acting (is there anything else to expect from two acting veterans?), but the story is totally transparent, making it a rather boring movie from the beginning to the end. Nice if you have nothing better to do and want to watch some tele, but not worth the money for the cinema ticket...
The movie is pretty decent - unfortunately that's it. The story is that of a typical disaster movie: Someone realizes that something is happening, governments keep this secret but prepare in secrecy, while everywhere in the world since of this happening, appear (but are played down). Some random guy, who has some kind of quarreled family finds out by accident, gets involved with one of the officials and by chance manages to get himself and his family saved as well, and in the end they get over the dispute they had, jut because of the experience. Sounds familiar? Well then, maybe because you've seen "The Day After Tomorrow". or "Independence Day". Or maybe, because you've seen 2012. What else do these movies have in common? Well, Roland Emmerich - seen one Emmerich, and you've seen all.
And while I am not saying it's bad in general, it's just not incredible good either - just one of the many (and there are even more of these), so it won't score any points with the plot or the story. On the plus side, however, even though it has a lengthy run time of 158 min (2.5 h), it will keep you interested till the end, it's not boring at any time and doesn't have lengths. Of course, you'd wonder at one or the other scene if that was really necessary, but other than that, it's an entertaining movie throughout. The camerawork is decent, but nothing to but nothing to brag about, the VFX looks stunning, but the story telling is quite straight forward. There's a great cast with John Cusack, Thandie Newton, Oliver Platt, Danny Glover or Woody Harrelson, but the acting - though decent and well played - are never really challenged, and don't give the performance that you'd expect them to be capable of; this leads to actually the children actors being the most interesting ones, because they just play the biggest and most believable emotions. But all in all, there is no chemistry between the actors, and this is probably due to mediocre directing. On the negative side, there's the question of how believable this whole story is. And to me, it isn't at all. Of all the scientists, both astrophysicists, as well as particle physicists only one guy sees a) the massive, never before seen sun eruptions, as well as the high neutrino concentration that just a few meters under the surface of the earth brings water to boil? And that's it? Of the tens of thousands scientists arround the globe no one else makes this observation? No one else notices anything wrong? And years later, when all the nature catastrophes start even Universities say "It's just a little earth quake", while whole cities where layed to waste with no prior indication what so ever? To me, that's a rather weak point of the script, and it really bothered me two or three times.
So summing it up, for every good point I can find, there's an equally negative point. This movie is enjoyable, it doesn't make any bigger mistakes, but that's just it. So in the end I end up where I started: in the middle! 5/10 Points.
Good average first season with some really strong episodes (such as the second, fourth and fifth) but also some rather dull ones (such as the first and the sixth), leveling tihs season to an average good 5/10 points
Until the end, it was not really strong, acting is average, but some of the characters (the Barker and the girlfriend) are actually rather annoying. Also I am no fan of the supposedly funny style and camera angles chosen. However, this episode actually ends with an interesting and funny twist, once more an "irony of life" ending, that I did not see coming, and that was somewhat satisfying and made me smile.
So in the end, we get an all around okey episode, that is fun to watch: 5/10 points.
What I game "Willard" as a bonus on top of my rating, I cannot give to Ben as well, because everything done in "Ben" was already was done once in its predecessor. The big problem: The predecessor is better at it in all aspects:
The Acting was mediocre and I cannot point out any actor that was as interesting in their performance as where Bruce Davison or Ernest Borgnine. Also the characters motivation is really strange - knowing what has happened it is in no way conceivable that the boy hides the rat and even keeps the incredible dangerous looking "base" a secret, while his sister even covers for him?
Story is nothing special as well with no surprises what so ever. Also it seemed that there where a lot more special effects, the rats looked somehow off, when there where larger numbers of them. This is what a bad sequel looks like, and despite it being younger it feels like being the older one, with worse quality and production value.
"If you can't beat the house, be the house" - according to this motto, the Johannes decide to create an underground casino with their friend Frank in their suburban neighbourhood. Their motivation are money problems due to wich they lost their last savings at Vegas.
As expected with such kind of comedy movies, the jokes are pretty simple and mostly based on the stupidity of our characters, which for me is seldom a reason for laughter. So, taking the comedy part, this movie was only seldom funny to me (some sex jokes, he's to stupid for simple calculations, etc.). Also Will Farrell is not someone I'd consider a great or funny actor.
Considering the plot, there is also not too much that is offered to the audience. And taking into account the number of high ranking movie and TV actors, one might wonder why one sees them in such a simple movie that does not demands anything, and gives them no chance to show their talent.
However, there's one thing that speaks for this movie and that is the absurde ideas this movie offers, e.g. the slow mo fighting scenes, the slasher elements, the absurd amount of blood, the image of the gang running through the neighbourhood, collecting money, the kick scene with Nick Kroll. Those where some inspired ideas that worked greatly with the movie and because of them being so absurd I had a number of scenes where I could actually laugh.
In the end it's an okey movie. Nothing that you'll have to see, nothing I would recommend, but also not a movie that annoyed me, or that I would deem a total waste of time. Which is why I rated it a solid middle 5/10. Let this one run in the background, when your local tv station plays it - with some friends, crisps and lights on, and then you won't regret it ;)
After watching Foxy Brown, I am a bit disappointed by this one. In my opinion, Pam Grier isn't as strong as she is in Foxy Brown, so this is the first down side. Second, the stroy is nearly identical, which is sad, but okey (same applies to every Bud Spencer and Terence Hill movie). But also the story is not as easy to follow as was the case with Foxy Brown - things just happen (we're suddenly in that strip bar, and noone questions why Coffy is there as well, etc.; or Coffy gets attackt in her car, and of course the police officer is just there; or the fighting scene at the beginning, etc.).
I liked the soundtrack a bit better, but all in all, I had not all to much fun with this one. Maybe my rating would have been better if I had watched this one first... I don't know...
If you are interested in these kind of blaxploitation movies and what to get a look into where Quentin Tarantino got his inspiration from for Jackie Brown, I'd rather recommend you to watch Foxy Brown.
I am working myself through the legendary Hammer movies, one at a time (as they are released by Anolis - a German movie label that produces high-quality restaurations as blu-ray releases in digipacks). Some of them are really great - but of course not all can be. "The Vampire Lovers" - one of the three movies of the "Karnstein Trillogy" - is one of the later movies, one that is strongly leaning towards the trashy side of things. On the one sind we have again Peter Cushing who is again exceptionally good; however in this movie he just gets an supporting role with little screen time. The lion share of the screen is invested in Ingrid Pitt, who - differently to Christopher Lees Vampire roles - is not the really the villain, but rather a sad character that acts badly due to her loneliness. Because of this loneliness she looks out for female lovers, but whomever she finds gets sick and finally gets turned into a vampire herself. In the background however, there is a misterious vampire lord who seems to be pulling the strings. However this is never really further elaborated - not sure if this is exposed in the other movies of the Karnstein Trillogy? Haven't seen them yet, so not sure abotu that.
I don't want to get further into the movie - however there is not much more happening. The typical final fight of the other movies is in this one really bad and unspectacular. Most of the movie shows the flirtations between Ingrid Pitt and the daughters of the village, which she picks - one after another. Her longest love interest is portrait by the beautiful Madeline Smith, who until then was unknown (she had another role in a Hammer movies - in Tast the Blood of Dracula she has a minor role), but managed to finally become a bond girl.
Besides from that the movie has nothing really to offer; theintroductory scene with the ball is really nice, and Peter Cushings acting is once more great. Ingrid Pitt however I did not like - her performance is average at most; Madeline Smith is better than Pitt - however, you realize that at that time she did not have much acting experience and probably got this role only because of her looks.
All in all it's still acceptable, and taking the time into considertaion I would still award it 5 out of 10 points. However, not a movie that I'd recommend or consider rewatching ever again.
On the German blu-ray release it reads "A hybrid of Mad Max and Death Proof!", which will of course set high expectations that this movie will not hold at all - if you expect anything near those master pieces than you are really in for a disappointment.
I try to watch movies as uninfluenced as possible to not have any kind of expectations, because a high expectation can lead to disappointment which will even lower your rating (due to the negative experience, that you might not have experienced when going into a movie without any expectations). However, I had some expectations, therefore I wasn't as happy as I expected. But, if you are in for a B-Movie with some action and some gore, than you'll get what you've asked for. You will however realize that this movie had an extremely low budget. However, they try to make the best out of this situations and in some departments this really works out great. This movie has a lot of the charme of a typical B-Movie or Grindhouse movie, there are some trashy scenes and a few number of times I had a laugh. However budget cuts where made especially when it comes to story, dialogues and mask, which I consider somewhat bad. Especially the mask - take for example the car explosion and then you see the victim survive with some ragged clothes and some makeup on the face - and you just realize how this is just makeup, not the ashes of an explosion. Also: why is the hair totally okey, if the entire face is black and the clothes are ripped? Also because of the bad writing, we get a number of scenes that are dragging, which is especially bad if you count in the short running time of the movie. And all in all you somehow have the feeling that the scenes are just parts that where somehow mixed together into a movie, but that seem disconnected to each other: We have an action scene, then some driving, then again an action scenen with totally different people, again some driving, and so on.
These are not the qualities that comapre with Mad Max or Death Proof. However, the story is nice, the splatter effects are great, and the practical effects are immensly good. CGI is near to terrible, but given it is a movie on a budget, it's okey - there've been hollywood blockbusters that have been worse. Also, the cast is execpetionally good, I love all three of the main actors that bring different aspects to the story, and that know their acting and know how to get the audiences attention. However, to improve the movie, it should have had more trashy gore (I loved the stop sign axe scene) a little bit less draggy scenes (take the Marry Death Badlands scene - I mean how did that add anythint to the plot? how was this in any ways funny or interesting, etc?), and a more natural look (more dirt, more sweat - it just doesn't fit if the actors look neat and clean after a number of battles - and use real dirt instead of bad makeup), and a little bit more and especially better dialoges (yes, it's a B-Movie but still, why not let the audience feel the attaction between our two main characters?). If those points would have been just a bit better, this movie would have had potential for at least 7/10 points.
But in the end, we have a number of positve as well as negative aspects that cancel each other out, so in the end, I end up with 5/10 points.
