Change Your Image
Freddy_Boy
Reviews
Falling Skies (2011)
Best described as a guilty pleasure
The amount of flag waving and overt patriotism in Falling Skies is by no means lacking. The film clearly take cues from the spirit of films such as Independence Day where it pitches remnants of humanity striking back against a superior enemy.
In the midst of the action is history teacher Tom Mason, played by Noah Wyle, and his three sons: Matt, Hal and Ben. Tom, throughout the series, delivers a ton of references to the American Revolutionary War which. Sometimes in the most contrived and forced way imaginable.
Tom himself, despite being a mere teacher, turns out to be an excellent military strategist and combatant. Aside from, in the midst of all that, being a great dad, moping over his dead wife and finding a new love. I got to hand it to Falling Skies, on one hand it manages to squeeze in almost every trope possible while still taking you by surprise. More along the line of you thinking: "They really went with that?" than a positive surprise, though.
Still Falling Skies actually kept me entertained though, as guilty as I am to admit it because there's a lot that should have driven me away from this show. But eventually it found it's footing, Noah Wyle really seemed to grow into the role and watching his sons grow up on camera made you care all the more for them all the more. Also, it's fascinating to see how Tom and his three sons pretty much excel at everything they do. If ever a script writer was playing favorites the Mason family is a great example.
Aside from Noah Wyle there's a few actors worth mentioning. Moon Bloodgood as doctor Anne Glass, for instance, doing what she can with a somewhat underdeveloped role. Sarah Carter as bad boy (or girl) Maggie, with a rough exterior, harsh attitude but a heart of gold. Will Patton as Daniel Weaver, a drunkard but stern military captain who grieves his family.
But the performance of Colin Cunningham is probably the one I really want to highlight. He had a small but recurring role as a clean cut Major on Stargate SG-1. Here he turns from disciplined military man into a rough outlaw stereotype named John Pope. Leather jacket, long hair and scruffy beard Pope always looks a little bit like a rebel without a cause and pretty much behaves the same. Ever the outsider Pope consistently works against the establishment often coming to disagreement with Tom Mason, despite that the two men's goals align. It's fascinating to see an actor turn in a role that's so different from what you're used to seeing, so cliché as well and yet he owns it completely and without shame. Ultimately John Pope turns into a really, in lack of better words, cool character that you really find yourself rooting for.
In many ways John Pope also defines the show: Rough on the outside, cliché-riddled but still perfectly lovable. Falling Skies gets two thumbs up from me, but I'm hiding them behind my back so you can't see.
Breaking Bad (2008)
One the best TV shows I've ever seen
Walter White (Bryan Cranston) is a high school chemistry teacher who seems trapped in his own life. He works part-time at a car wash and worries about money. His wife is pregnant and his son has cerebral palsy. In the midst of all this he is diagnosed with terminal lung cancer.
Seeing as he hasn't amounted to much in life Walter wants to leave something behind. He's looking for easy cash. By chance he meets up with a former student. The student is now a drug dealer, real name Jesse Pinkman (Aaron Paul), who goes by the street name "Captain Cook". Walter, who was once a genius chemist, produces some of the best methamphetamine Jesse have ever tried and he starts to push it.
Walter, who already had to deal with his cancer, now also has to deal with his new life as a criminal and a world that might be too much for him to handle. He's also struggling to avoid to catch the suspicion of his brother-in-law Hank who is a D.E.A agent.
Personally, I love the set-up, and the theme. Drug romanticizing and criminal shows always have some moral ambiguity and as such, with very little spoiling, Walter is forced to do bad things. It's intriguing to see a show that doesn't push these things to the edge nor does it ignore them blatantly. Walter displays a gradual and small change. Not overwhelming development from scene to scene as in other TV shows. He also reacts and show disgust for gruesome acts of violence instead of the regular indifference or even reveling in it as we're so used to see in other shows. But it still affects him. And that is another thing I like about this show. Walter has a conscience. But each of his morally ambiguous choices push him closer and closer to the edge. Which raises another point of interest in the show: Will his family tolerate the person he's becoming and will they stick around?
Bryan Cranston has created a very living character with his portrayal of Walter White. Not putting down everyone else's performance for that matter. Even the more apparently superficial characters such as Jesse and Hank have a lot of subtle nuances to them. It's a refreshing contrast to the otherwise exaggerated and stereotypical Hollywood characters who can be summarized in two or three words.
As far as inspirational sources goes the theme of a making the character a bad guy is recognizable from Dexter or The Shield. Breaking Bad however is not as fast-paced as the later (although seasons 2 does crank up the speed) and not as vivid as the former. Not saying that it's not inspirational but Breaking Bad, so far, seems to reward the patient. If this had been CSI: Miami they would probably have told this story in one episode but lacking the great photography, excellent acting and hilarious black comedy.
If you're looking for a show that will grow on you and with refreshing ideas and character development, look no further, Breaking Bad is here.
Dollhouse (2009)
Joss Whedon creates TV history again.
There have been few directors and writers who creates as much ruckus as Joss Whedon. There are the dedicated fan-base, the crowd who loves to hate him and those who simply scratch their head and wonders what the big deal is.
Joss Whedon's "Buffy The Vampire Slayer" has been described as "influential" on the entertainment industry. He proved that throwing monsters and demons in the mix doesn't make a show that appeals to an audience. It requires a good writer and actually relating to the audience.
He's a writer that prefers to build momentum as the show progresses with each season being bigger, better and badder than the next. In many ways this is also true for the "Dollhouse". It started out in a crawling speed with less of a general storyline and more of the standard episodic narration.
Dollhouse is the story of Echo, a doll in a veritable Dollhouse, who is imprinted with different personalities in order for the rich and influential to enact their fantasies with her. Not their sexual (primarily at least) but their emotional desires. Thus far the show had a pretty unique opportunity and actually did venture into many different genres placing Echo in love, crime, action and mystery stories.
But as things evolved it turns out Echo remembers more and more of her "imprints" even though she's not supposed to and a grand scheme of things are uncovered.
And as of lately the show really caught some speed. What started off as a slow-moving little model train has suddenly turned into a huge, derailed locomotive. May it be that the show has been canceled that has forced Whedon to progress the story quicker. But regardless the fact of the matter is that right now the show is at a great place. Few TV shows right now offer this amount of suspense and surprising plot twists within and between each episode.
If the show quietly had progressed along and died out after the first season things might have been different. But as it stands now I will miss the "Dollhouse" and Fox will be blamed for canceling what could have been one of the best shows on TV.
Gamer (2009)
Who is the audience?
Gamer, starring "This is Sparta" Gerard Butler and "Psychotic Serial Killer" Michael C. Hall unfortunately seem to have been type-casted for this movie.
While both of them are convincing as their respective characters. I can buy Hall as the eccentric and even slightly crazed multi-billionaire genius Ken Castle and Butler as the iconic star of the game Slayers: Kable. Who, as it turns out, happens to excel at killing people. But unfortunately their main contribution to the movie is a face, voice and some fancy punchlines. Hall's character probably even gets the most dialogue and he's not even the main character. To clarify: Shallow character portrayals, uninspired acting and cliché dialogue.
The setting is rather cliché as well. Ken Castle, a "next-generation" Bill Gates (or an evil Mark Zuckerberg), has invented technology which allows players to control other humans. The first application of this was social networking game. But the story revolves around the follow-up: Slayers. A game which allows the players to control death row inmates in a game which simply is all about killing each other.
The actual rules of the game is actually never explained but it involves team play and save points but with one winner, which so happens, to be Kable (Gerard Butler) who's controlled by the star player Simon (Logan Lerman).
Any player that participates in thirty matches is automatically released. Kable has three more rounds to go before his release and, of course, there will be trouble.
This story has been iterated many times before with gladiators of some sort fighting for freedom. Whether it be racing, running, fighting, shooting or just staying alive this really isn't in any way a fresh idea. Neither is the social commentary the movie attempts to make: Bill Gates never involved himself in game development, social networking sites such as Facebook really are applications which let you be yourself and, well, the terminology is out of place.
Something called "save points" are in the game which are never explained at all. For us gamers a save point is a point where your game saves it's state automatically. But in a game like this, with real players in a real-life environment, how do you save a state like that? Just throwing some terminology around doesn't make it more convincing. If that were true I could pose as a doctor and theoretical physicist.
It also seems as the writers simply failed in identifying the audience. For instance there's plenty of gore and over-the-top violence in Gamer and, again, I'm not sure the writers or the director realized that the most popular games are not known for their gore but their game mechanics.
The most played MMORPGs, such as World of Warcraft, are cartoonish and childish in their design. The most popular First-Person Shooters are tactical shooters such as Battlefield: 1942 or Counterstrike. None of which depicts any actual gore.
With a title like Gamer and the approach of a real-life video game I assumed they were aiming for a, well, gaming audience. But the more I watched I got the feeling that this movie is actually directed to those who are prejudiced about gamers.
Games which do feature this amount of gore, such as Postal 2 and even Quake or Unreal, never actually generates that amount of success. Not today at least with such a young generation of players and such a huge audience. So why are there really bits and pieces of human flying around in this movie?
All in all: Gamer may be intense, action-filled and with a respectable cast but it seemingly fails to relate to the audience or even make a social commentary of itself other than the fact that Hollywood can still be horribly self-absorbed.
Stargate Universe (2009)
It's good TV. Really.
"SGU: Stargate Universe" is a TV-show that tries to fill a gap. It seems there's an audience out there looking for the next Lost.
FlashForward, Defying Gravity and Stargate Universe are all shows that tries to capitalize on the success of mystery shows such as Lost.
The Stargate franchise previous shows, SG-1 and Atlantis, both followed a pretty standard self-contained story for each episode and with a story arch for each season.
Stargate Universe so far breaks the ordinary Stargate mold and goes for building suspense and ending with cliffhangers. There are some self-contained storytelling within each episode but building suspense between episodes is intriguing and it's fresh. For the Stargate Universe that is. Unfortunately it's what can bring the show to a screeching halt.
There's already a slight uproar about what can mostly be described as a "Lostification" of the TV Show. And, frankly, I'm not sure if Stargate, even with SG-1 running for ten years, can ever be mainstream enough to attract a wide audience. Personally I would probably have preferred a more casual show such as SG-1 and Atlantis that, truth to be told, didn't require much of an investment. You could jump into the show after the first commercial break and still enjoy the rest.
It's sad too because I still found myself hooked. There's enough Stargate in there to recognize it and there's enough mystery and suspense to keep me hooked until the next episode.
The cast is also very impressive. There's Robert Carlyle that's metaphorically speaking acting circles around everyone. David Blue as the lead character, Eli Wallace, is sympathetic. While it seems as he's the stereotypical nerd tossed in for the audience to relate to he is, in fact, a likable character.
Other names are Justin Louis, Lou Diamond Phillips and Ming-Na leads to a rather impressive cast in terms of television.
The cast, suspense and and mystery adds to (in my mind) a great TV show. Let's just hope it doesn't end up like other promising shows this year such as Dollhouse and Defying Gravity.
Star Trek (2009)
Great reboot of the Star Trek Universe.
My father usually described Star Trek very simply: "When the camera shakes stuff happens". I'm guessing even he will stand in awe upon this action-oriented Star Trek movie.
While I'm by no means a trekkie I still consider myself somewhat more educated in the Star Trek trivia than your average TV-viewer.
So for me it was kind of hard watching the first half of the movie seeing some rather large plot events went with current lore and status of the Star Trek universe. I was under the impression that this actually was a prequel.
However, as it turned out, this is a reboot. And that's very fortunate because it's a great one at that.
Chris Pine is a great James T. Kirk. He got the smug look and the over-the-top confidence to match. He reminds me a bit more of the early work of Shatner during the first series.
Howver, the real star here, I would dare say is Zachary Quinto who nails Spock. When he first appeared on screen I wondered what kind of plastic surgery Leonard Nimoy went through only to realize that it's really not him. This is just Spock.
What's even greater is that Quinto not only portrays the character Spock but develops him further. He really turns Spock into his own, not only striving to "play him like Nimoy".
Other names involved Eric Bana, Chris Hemsworth, Karl Urban and John Cho really delivers. Especially the otherwise over-the-top humoristic John Cho gives us a slightly more advanced Sulu. Again, more action-oriented, but never-the-less Sulu.
In all this new, rebooted, crew really delivers and honor the predecessors. The only one that I'm still uncertain about is Anton Yelchin as Pavel Chekov. However something tells me he will grow into character.
I expect great things of the Star Trek reboot. The cast is young and the action scenes are great. There's plenty of time to develop this into a new batch of series.
Hopefully we'll get to see more of J.J Abrams and his new Star Trek.
Religulous (2008)
Bill Maher poking on religion
Let's get this said first: I live in Sweden. In a recent survey 23% of Swedish citizens replied that they "they believe there is a God". However 53% replied "they believe there is some sort of spirit or life force" and only 23% really defined themselves as atheists by stating "they believe there is some sort of spirit or life force".
So fundamentalism and religion isn't a real issue for us. Not as it is portrayed in Bill Maher's Religulous.
Maher does bring some valid points however. A recent case in Sweden involved pastor Åke Green who was sentenced for hate speech because of a sermon where referred to homosexuality as an "abnormal, a horrible cancerous tumor in the body of society". He was later acquitted on grounds of freedom of religion. When religion are held above the laws of the nation you have a problem. Fortunately for us in Sweden as a democratic nation these religious beliefs aren't laws.
When religion even goes above the laws of a nation we have a problem. Not only nation-wide but worldwide. Religious people can preach hate against non-religious people. Mahers documentary makes the very valid point that atheists and agnostics shouldn't tip-toe around and be more vocal about their doubt. Especially when we see history repeating itself.
However and this is my criticism, this documentary ended up more like a mockumentary. Maher mostly mocks and ridicules the mere notion of belief. Which, is pretty funny to see, when his victims start displaying classic cognitive dissonance but it becomes something different when he starts going after religions which he seems less familiar with.
When he comes to Islam we get to see pictures of suicide bombings in Jerusalem. Here is where I think Maher starts getting it wrong. Over 13 000 Palestinian homes have been destroyed since the Six-Day War. Not a singe Israeli settlement has been destroyed. Not to mention that suicide bombings make up less than one percent of the attacks by Palestinians against Israelis.
The facts in this documentary gets a bit skewed when it comes to the discussion of Islam. Maher seems to do his best to portray this as a violent religion preaching hate and violence more so than any other. If Maher had focused his eye on Sweden he would have heard about Ecce Homo, portraying Jesus as gay, which spawned numerous death threats from the Christian community. On top of that islamist terrorism accounted for 4 of 583 terrorist acts according to Europol during 2007. Giving Islam a different treatment than any other religion as a "terrorist" religion is plain wrong. All religions have spawned violent acts.
What can be said about Religulous in the end is that it's too short, biased and doesn't quite follow through on the core issues.
Still, worth a watch, but keep in mind that this is more of a statement than a documentary.
Stargate SG-1 (1997)
Just what it's supposed to be
Fact: Stargate SG-1 is a cheesy sci-fi TV series.
There's no escaping facts. How much you try to excuse yourself or explain it Stargate SG-1 remains a cheesy sci-fi TV series. Stargate SG-1 does borrow and steal ideas briskly. Special FX aren't nearly as impressive as they could have been (although they do get progressively better) and the action isn't going to blow you out of the chair or couch for that matter either. The dialogue may be corny at best and Richard Dean Andersons punchlines may be lame but it's all part of it's charm.
But, and this is where I really think Stargate SG-1 deserves all the credit it can get, for each and every episode or stolen idea I think you can count at least one cheesy sci-fi movie that's actually worse than a one hour TV episode. In fact some episodes actually could probably have been 90 minutes long and still have been better than most movies.
Being able to keep that quality throughout the show and keep delivering and pushing the storyline further is what makes Stargate SG-1 special. Trust me: I am very picky with my selections. I follow perhaps one or two TV series at most and I hold pretty high standards which made me even more surprised when I found myself caught. I wasn't a fan boy and didn't catch the shows until it was on reruns. But, man, was it fun. The overarching story for each season is worth investing in too. They really go out of the way to make for interesting season finales.
The very last few seasons are probably the most interesting. While you may think that it would just drag on they actually came with some refreshing ideas and took the effort to play on itself and the genre as a whole. There's a fantastic episode where they have a sit-down and pitches movie ideas with an old friend and movie producer. There's some hilarious stuff in that episode. Few shows will ever progress as far to make such an episode a reality!
So for those who decide to brush of Stargate SG-1 as yet another tacky sci-fi show: Don't. Stick with it and you'll see what I'm talking about.
The Transporter (2002)
High-speed action from start to stop
Jason Statham plays Frank Martin a man works as a professional transporter. That means delivering or driving anyone without asking questions.
Statham is an unlikely action hero. From chased in Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels to boxing promoter in Snatch and now energetic action star challenging "actors" as Van Damme for the role as hard-kicking bad boy.
And he does a fine job too. Statham has a lot of presence and a lot more acting talent than other action stars. He might not be a Kevin Spacey but he can definitely get into character. Even if it happens to be the generic "ex-special forces" unwilling hero that just happens to be good at just about everything, except giving up that is.
French action movies are plenty in numbers now a days. This movie isn't bringing life into a stagnating movie industry. If anything this movie is contributing to it. This is, pretty much, a standard generic template. Some cool action stunts, fight scenes, car chase and some, but not much, snappy dialog.
In the end The Transporter is nothing more and nothing less than a good action flick. With Jason Statham as the main contributor that is.
This is also another one, albeit rather early, movie that carries the "Luc Besson Label". He was indeed involved as a writer and producer his name even puts director Louis Leterrier on the side. A director who, as a note, got to direct The Incredible Hulk with Edward Norton. That these movies, with Bessons involvement, act as a springboard for directors and upcoming action stars is likely but also sets the standard for movies to come.
Still, Transporter was one of the earlier action movies, not groundbreaking or anything but very well worth viewing and by all likelihood even enjoying.
Kung fu (2004)
No holds barred non-stop fun
I saw this movie some time after The Matrix fever settled. Hugely disappointed at the last two movies I didn't think wire fu movies could ever be truly magnificent.
And along came Kung Fu Hustle. I was amazed and in awe. There was comedy, plenty of CGI, action, drama and even a bit of horror. Stephen Chow really explores each and every bit of the action genre and even dares to mix in cartoonish action.
The playfulness and honesty portrayed in this movie blends together perfectly. One part never play out the other. It's never too serious and never too silly. It's just right and you'll probably sit with a quirky smile and feel-good notion in your belly at the end of this beautiful movie.
Chow's main character is probably one of the funniest portrays in a while. It's hard to describe last time we saw such presence both in acting and action sequences. It's not fair to compare him with Bruce Lee but that is the amount of presence he delivers in this movie. Bruce may have proved himself as a fighter but Stephen Chow proves himself as a creator and actor.
Ultimately Kung Fu Hustle is a movie that you have to see. I've introduced it among friends and family and not one person so far has disliked it. It's a movie with a little bit of everything that anyone can enjoy.
Go rent and watch it today. I'm serious. Don't miss out on this one.
Monk (2002)
Good, but gets a bit predictable
Monk is by far one of the best detective shows I've seen. It uses a pretty standard template for each episode where we as viewers are handed parts of the puzzle early on and for the remainder of the show watch Adrian Monk investigate the murder. In the end you'll probably have the solution right before Monk does and you can feel as clever about yourself as he does.
It's really brilliant in fact and the wonderful acting of Tony Shalhoub on top of that is just frosting on this wonderful cake.
Tony Shalhoub's character Adrian Monk is a former cop who has turned private investigator after his wife's death. He's also suffering from obsessive compulsive disorder and believes cleanliness to be more than a virtue. Those little quirks plays out altogether coherently. In other show the characters are pushed around by explosions or threatened by gunshots. Monk gets intimidated by a messy room or are scared half to death having climb through a dusty window. It's really extremely fun to see Monk in action, how is a very different sort of anti-hero.
However as the show progressed things started getting predictable. I don't believe they got sloppy writing it. But as Monk is suffering from obsessive compulsive disorder his behavior and reactions does tend to repeat itself. And some episodes left so many obvious clues that we had solved the riddle during the first 15 minutes.
Still, Monk is something different. It's refreshing and it's fun. Definitely worth viewing.
Clerks II (2006)
Surprisingly good
I hadn't seen the first Clerks movie. I had however watched "Jay and Silent Bob Strikes Back" which I had mixed feelings about. Clerks II however was surprisingly straight through a good movie.
This isn't a straightforward and utterly brainless comedy that the Farelly brothers could have pushed out. This is more subtle and a little more heartwarming comedy while still maintaining a fair bit of decadence.
The message of the movie is very vocal: To put your own desires first and do what you feel is right, even if it sometimes means settling for less and putting your career aside.
Even if the movie delivers such a clear message, director Kevin Smith never delivers it in a charming package. This movie isn't guaranteed to make you laugh at loud but at least you'll sit through it with a smile and a warm fuzzy feeling inside.
Clerks II obviously doesn't aim to be a box office hit. I wonder if Kevin Smith keeps it too simple. On the other hand some jokes seem overworked, especially one the later scenes involving Dante's going away party.
Still this is a charming comedy and a good movie. Better than the mainstream Hollywood garbage we've been force-fed for years now.
Alone in the Dark (2005)
As bad as they say it is
Well, this movie has received a 2.2 average out of 12319 votes and if that alone doesn't scare you away hopefully my comment will.
First off I think Christian Slater is an overrated actor. Sure he's made a name for himself. He did a good work in Interview with the Vampire and he did ride with the brat pack in Young Guns II. But asides from that I think he's received a lot more credit than he's worth.
Anyhow Slater is given a fair amount of monologue in this movie. Up to a point where it becomes tedious in fact and it's also seemingly unmotivated. Speaking of monologues the introduction starts of with a speaker voice and is ridiculously long. If you even bare to remember half of it you're in for a disappointment because they iterate it throughout the entire movie. This film is still a puzzle, my sincerest wish is that they just skipped all attempts at being serious and just went straight for the action.
Then again the action isn't much to brag about either. The camera is flimsy and some of the action scenes are actually left out for some reason. No spoilers here but we're cheated on some mayhem and we always like to see that.
Without spoiling too much another issue is the scary part of this movie. Or the lack of it. With such flat character portraits you never develop any concern or sympathy for them. And to top it off, none of the actions scenes actually convey any real danger.
We're also introduced to so many threats and all remains unexplained. Zombies, mad scientist, alien-type monsters and a top secret organization. And because this movie does include a great mystery it's frustrating that they try to serve an answer but ultimately fails.
The movie also features Tara Reid, an actor we all love to hate and she keeps giving us reason to. Her acting and credibility reaches about as far as I can toss an elephant. She has a bad habit of bringing movies down a notch and she doesn't make an exception for Alone in the Dark. Her acting is 100% emotionless.
To summarize this I just want to say that I gave this movie 1 star rating. I'm fairly certain it's a bit harsh, it probably deserves 2, maybe even 3. But because this is a fairly high budget movie with reasonably known (and well payed) actors it's a surprise it fails so miserably and does so entirely on it's won.
Angel (1999)
Just as imaginative as Buffy
As a fan of Joss Whedon's creations it's hard not to like Angel, a spin-off based on the character with the same name. Angel is a vampire with a soul seeking for redemption. His past actions as the soulless Angelus by far out weights saving the world on more than one occasion and this is what ultimately drives the show.
It started small with Angel opening a private investigation firm dedicated to helping those in need. And of course dealing with the occult which has a finger everywhere. Cordelia went over from Buffy to Angel and a new character named Doyle was introduced. Later on both Wesley and Spike appears on the show as well. We also have some cross-overs like Buffy, Faith, Willow and Oz.
Along the way though Angel gathers a wide array of sidekicks which becomes his Scoobies (fan-based term). The gang also movies into new bases of operation as the show continues, an added bonus as many shows deal with the same scenery throughout the story.
Angel and Buffy are rather cheesy when it comes to special FX and stunts. Somewhere along the line though it feels like Angel became more solid though, better FX and more impressive action and stunts. But that's not what's attractive about the show.
Angel, and Buffy alike, delivers something else. It's the actors dedication, the characters development and the fact that what seems as random episodes suddenly by the final seasons tie together into the main story line. Filled with twists that actually makes sense regardless of how surprising or ridiculous they might have seemed in almost any other show on the air. You can really tell how much was put into creating this show. It's not some tired old TV show, it's about people really creating something imaginative.
The only real drawback on the show is Angel himself. It's no spoiler to say that he develops very little. Almost every other character is transformed, changed or developed further. But Angel remains the same: The vampire seeking redemption. One would have liked to see a greater change in the main character of the show. Buffy did progress a whole lot through that show and it's sad Angel doesn't do the same. On the other hand he was introduced in Buffy as a sort of mentor that already had matured.
Angel is also a more serious show, sure there's some humor but Buffy had the opportunity to play on itself. Angel hasn't. Since these series tend to give of a rather cheesy appearance taking itself to series can have a very negative impact.
All in all though Angel is a well thought out TV show. An imaginative story and interesting characters that you'll learn to love.
Feast (2005)
Lots of gory deaths
I just recently finished watching Feast. Rather bold move in retrospect since I'm very easily scared and it's now pitch black in my apartment and one hour to midnight (local time).
First off this movie is gory. There's a whole lot of blood and a whole lot of gruesome deaths. That's basically the premise of the entire plot, then again, most horror movies are but where others fail Feast does it in style.
The movie is more of a parody of itself and the genre as a whole. They don't even bother giving the characters any real names. However, they did go the extra mile to give them realistic reactions. Other horror movies often deal with answers, monsters that just happen to have a special weakness that makes them easier to defeat (even if it's just some brute force), a likely hero or heroine that's expected to kick some monster butt or you'll just sit through the entire movie expecting a happy ending because it's "that kind of movie".
Well, let me tell you this, this movie didn't allow you to take anything for granted. No one is "sacred". Everyone is expendable. You're not even allowed to speculate about the ending because the situation looks extremely grim at more than one occasion.
If it weren't for the gore and violence I would give this movie an even better rating. However, I believe at points it was a bit over the top and we could have been spared some. The points of horror movies is to scare not disgust. The monsters seemed a bit stale as well, which made an impact as well.
The very best thing though is as I mentioned the characters reactions to the situation. I can't even remember a horror movie that you could identify with and understand even the most rash decisions. In many movies you get the feeling that they willingly walk into a trap or turn of the lights just for the sake of it but here we actually get to see scared, desperate and terrified people doing illogical and rash things because they're in a state of shock, not just some flat, stupid Hollywood stereotype (even while they are, remember the parody part).
All in all though, this is one the best horror movies I've seen in a while though. If you have the stomach for it go right ahead and give it a view.
Highlander (1986)
My favorite movie
It's hard for me to be objective about Highlander. I do receive a few remarks when I tell people which my favorite movie is and I agree: Highlander is not for everyone.
It's not a marvel in terms of special effects. It's not a perfect story and it doesn't try to serve any ultimate answers to any of the questions raised in the movie. This was later attempted in the second movie which nearly could have brought down the entire franchise right there and then.
However, this isn't the second movie, it's the first. And in many ways Highlander is in fact unique. The story is imaginative and creative. I've seen few movies pull of such an epic story with such small means. You don't need one million orcs in a raging battlefield to make it epic. Two men fencing it out in a parking garage is actually just fine.
The soundtrack is really great as well as the choreography. The fights are very convincing too. This isn't the ordinary dancing type, Errol Flynn-like fencing scene. This is no holds barred fencing.
Christopher Lambert in the lead role feels like a natural choice. He has a bad habit of taking himself too seriously. For Highlander this works exceptionally well though. He doesn't act really act he simply is Connor MacLeod, the Immortal Highlander, acting as an antique dealer. It's really fascinating to behold.
Clancy Brown created movie history with Highlander. Kurgan is one of the few movie villains I believe people can remember. He's no Darth Vader but he's a villain that makes an impression.
As I mentioned I am very partial in my rating of Highlander.. But it really is a great movie and an epic story. If all else fails, it's still a decent action movie.
Watch it, chances are you'll like it.
Heroes (2006)
Greatest superhero soap opera so far
There isn't any stiff competition when it comes to superheroes, and especially not something brand new, not just another trademark adapted to the TV or movie screen.
Heroes is unique, in many ways. First off it's filled with characters. Some famous and some less famous the cast is almost flawless. Acting and dialog are relatively natural in comparison to some other shows in this genre.
Due to the many leading roles there's little room for any actual character development. Some characters have changed rather rapidly and without hinting too much we know they will. Right now the show is more about coping and keeping up with what's going on though.
Special FX are scarce but well executed and never over the top. But all action sequences are very well done and adds to Heroes being a solid production.
Currently there are a lot of writers involved as it seems and they are having trouble keeping a tight ship. As there are so many characters to keep up with we fans have been left with some questions unanswered. Hopefully we'll get more answers a long the way but some of these events seem to remain a mystery. Hopefully the writers will get their act together for season two because the sloppiness is beginning to have an impact on the show.
My only nitpick about Heroes is that this is probably as good as it gets. I still wait, probably in vain, for a high-budget superhero TV show with costumes but as most superhero shows try to capture a broad, mainstream audience I find it unlikely.
Heroes probably never will involve any costumes or secret identities. But for now we superhero-fans have Heroes, the next best thing.
Smallville (2001)
Good attempt but falls a bit flat
I've been watching Smallville on and off during the first years and really started watching for the last two seasons.
There really isn't much competition when it comes to TV Shows based on superheroes. Basically what we have to choose among is cheesy TV shows with costumes or tastier TV shows without costumes. Smallville falls into the later category.
The cast is impeccable and the acting is overall very good. The show decides to go it's own way story wise but keeps a healthy amount of references to the comics. It's wise to keep in mind that this isn't based on the comics, more inspired by. Some characters do make appearance and without spoiling too much we even get to see a few costumes in the latest season, which is a pleasant treat.
Special FX are also very well executed. It adds to the feeling of Smallville being a solid production and not a low-budget, tacky superhero franchise.
There are however one thing that I strongly dislike about Smallville. And that is the lack of character development. In the end we're watching the same people in new situations and new environments. Clark hasn't really progressed at all, Chloe is still doing what Chloe does and Lana, well, don't get me started on Lana.
The only two characters really going through change are Lex and Lionel. However, it isn't their show, it's Clark's. And he should have changed and matured faster than the other, but to me he's still that confused teenager he was when he started.
The dialog also falls a bit flat sometimes. It aims for drama, but sometimes ends up sounding empty. At lot of grand words without any real meaning. There are some snappy and witty dialogs as well, but sometimes it feels as it's there to fill up some air time or because someone refused to "kill their darlings".
It still has it's moment and is definitely worth viewing though.
The Crow: Wicked Prayer (2005)
Doesn't quite keep it together
As a Joss Whedon-fan, and in turn a Buffy/Angel fan, I tend to watch almost anything containing these actors.
David Boreanaz isn't an impressive actor. In both Buffy and Angel his toned down acting worked quite well. Especially in Angel since he was supposed to be the glue sticking it all together. But in The Crow: Wicked Prayer he doesn't quite convince as the evil bad guy.
Furlong however make an excellent performance in this movie and really plays it out. It's a bit of a shame really, because in the end it feels kind of wasted.
There are some interesting scenes in the movie and some really bad ones. In the end it just doesn't keep it together. It feels like parts of the movie is lost somewhere along the line. And even then there's a whole lot of flashbacks on what has happened in the movie. In the end you'll feel kind of cheated, sitting there thinking: "So, that's it? No more?". And I don't mean that in a good way.
Also, Tara Reid is close to bringing this whole movie down crashing. I don't know if she was having a bad day when shooting some of her scenes but her overall performance is horrifying. She delivers her lines with an unparalleled stiffness.
All in all it isn't a bad movie though. It's still keeping The Crow movie series floating and there are some scenes here that's worth keeping.
Buffy the Vampire Slayer (1997)
You'll fall in love with Buffy The Vampire Slayer
If you just let yourself.
Creator of the series Joss Whedon is an highly underrated director/writer. Which also is part of his greatness: He settles for less. He doesn't strive for perfection but rather does his best and seem content with it.
Let it be said: The special FX or martial art stunts in Buffy won't blow you away. But in difference from TV series such as Smallville it settles with that and instead focuses on character development and an intriguing plot line (to say the least).
Each season has driven the plot further, as the characters grow so does the challenges. And most of the time the show isn't too clever for it's own good either. You never really stop to think "Did they really say that?" or "Did they really do that?". It's coherent and creative at the same time. Answers are also served pretty quickly, you don't have to sit through an entire season waiting for an ultimate answer.
The imagination is unparalleled to almost any other show I've ever seen. I'm constantly amazed of the creativity that's put into this show. Actors and extras all make an excellent work. I often feel when watching this show that it was created because these people love their work, not just their paycheck.
For those who don't get caught into the show however, it's probably more of a comedy. Not that it's bad when viewed in that way either, Cordelia, Xander and Willow have delivered a lot of laughter through the years. But in the end, if you let the drama and the emotions suck you in Buffy is a much greater show than at a first glance.
DOA: Dead or Alive (2006)
Sometimes you need mind-numbing action
And then DoA is definitely the movie for you. As a guy I'm forced to like this. Well executed martial art scenes and stunts, beautiful cast and reasonable acting. Remember this is a movie based on a fighting game, the actors and writers are forced to add dimensions to the movie and characters. If everyone's character portraits seems flat, it's probably because they are, if you catch my drift.
However, something that's often lost in translation is the hard work some actors put down training and practicing for the movie. I'm not saying it's an excuse for bad acting, but it's respectable in it's own right.
The plot line is rather cheesy and I have to admit that I was a bit disappointed in the "evil master-plan". The movie just drew a line there Heroes are Good and Villains are Bad regardless of their actions. It's a bit degrading to the audience that we can't make up our own minds, but then again, this movie is obviously not designed as an intellectual challenge.
Brian J. White caught my eye in The Shield and I was surprised to see him in this movie, but his performance was flawless. It was more or less spot on how I would have imagined Zack "in person".
All in all: entertaining to watch and action sequences to remember. Definitely worth viewing.
From Dusk Till Dawn 2: Texas Blood Money (1999)
It will leave an impression
Regardless if you like it or hate it I'm pretty sure this movie will leave an impression.
This is the kind of movie that leave you befuddled not knowing whether you should laugh or cry.
Horror sequences are predictable yet utterly stupid. There are major gaps in the plot. One of the more obvious being the main plot: Going to Mexico to rob a bank. It's basic movie trivia that you commit a crime and then you go to Mexico to escape the long arm of the law.
The dialog makes clumsy attempts at being clever, Tarantino-ish if you will. Unfortunately it all just falls flat. Tarantino has an odd gift for allowing actors to fluently deliver the dialogue no matter how cliché it might be. This lacks here. Instead just about every sentence spoken sounds contrived and forced.
Action sequences are horrendous. Vampires and cops alike line up in order to die in a gruesome manner. We're talking really lining up. Not in the sense that everybody dies but in the sense that there seems to be a veritable queue. The camera focuses, slightly off-focus on one killing, then moves on the next.
I think this movie is a bit of a hit and miss. I got the sense that they tried to create something and failed miserably. If you watch it, try to think of it as a movie that doesn't try to be anything. That way you at least won't have any expectations of it.
In the end however this movie is probably best remained unseen.
From Dusk Till Dawn 3: The Hangman's Daughter (1999)
Wants more than it delivers
However, what it delivers isn't a little.
The prelude, if you will, actually lasts the majority of the movie. The horror doesn't start until very late. Until then it's a violent western tale to be told. And if there was time and money on this project I think it could have delivered a whole lot more.
Still doesn't measure up to the first movie, but was a whole lot better than the second one. Besides, Western/Vampire Horror Movie isn't something you see every day and it earns points just for that.
I definitely recommend this movie, it's not about to change your world, but it's different enough to be entertaining and imaginative enough to be interesting.