gmalnieks Reviews

Assault on Precinct 13 (2005)

Tries to deliver more than it should, and mostly fails

[5/10 · 28 January 2010]

Well, this one sure is not a masterpiece as, to say the truth, neither was the original. This one lacks the portrayal of times and, may I say, "a talent" but delivers action better and that is no wonder considering a gap in budget and almost 30 years of progress between both. Violence is higher than in average Hollywood action and there is no mercy for the characters except the lead roles, of course. No wonder again, as the director is french. All in all good enough shootout movie, but if you wanna see a really good one in this area better look for french flick called The Nest made few years before this one. Why didn't they hire Nest's director for this remake if they wanted a Frenchman so badly? He would have probably done it much better.

P.S. For all the smarts around - there actually is a "device" which can "block" cell signals in certain area invented and in constant use all around the world and, yes, you probably can't shoot a bullet through a snowdrift near the road as it is made by pushing snow off the road and is often "icy" and no sniper would take a shot without clear target when his own men are wandering the area, thought I kept wondering how can you hide from a sniper on the roof by hiding behind a snowdrift? What should be an angle of such a snowdrift?

Avatar (2009)

Jurassic Park of our decade

[1/10 · 24 January 2010]

Well, maybe it deserves a few more, but I have to challenge the overall rating which is far too high for this load of crap. I actually did not get any mind blowing experience even in the field of visuals. All the creatures, blue monkeys (well, that was a nice line from the "bad guy"), trees and stuff looks great, but in a way of a fairy tale not "the other world" or smth. This movie looks like made under influence of magic mushrooms or substances with similar effects. And all the visuals couldn't drag away my attention from the fact that there was unoriginal story, weak plot, cheap "face" shots and editing which comes with every average action flick in the past decades. Actually, I had a lot of time to think of this during the movie and that is not a good thing. To say it in one line, this movie is Jurassic Park of our decade (no offence to Dino fans), only worse.

The Beast of War (1988)

As movie it was great and meaningful even going factually totally wrong

[7/10 · 4 February 2008]

Well, I think I got the point what was meant, but it shall be clear that it has nothing to do with portraying Afgan-Soviet conflict. This movie try to deal with a nature of war as it self and does it to my mind pretty good.

Well, these guys in a tank were not Russians in any manner. Maybe it is possible that some smarts is questioning his comrades towards enemies, but it's hard to consider it in USSR troops. Comradeship is a holy thing for them, holier then bible, so there is no way they could abandon one of them even when it would be an order (even if commander would gone insane to order such an action, crew would probably beat the sheet out of him rather then obey). My uncle served in action in Afganistan for soviets as commando. Although he isn't Russian and had little respect (as most Latvians) to soviets, he's never disrespected his army fellows or combating officers.

Starting action was pretty made up as well, as for village blowing purposes soviets would use choppers not tanks. Tanks was used in protecting roads and securing routes. Operatons was mainly carried out by solders and armored vehicles - BTR's. Tanks could be used as support, but there is no way massive tank attack would be enforced without commandos on foot or vehicles guarding them as it was shown (well, armament has always been a virtue for soviet commanders not soldiers).

But as I already said, in general this movie is totally worth to see.