Change Your Image
jayce2279
Reviews
Mad Max: Fury Road (2015)
A mentally disturbed Max takes a backseat to a politically correct story amidst top notch production design and action scenes
When I watched "Mad Max: Fury Road" in the theater back in 2015, I was impressed by its production design and action sequences, but felt like everything else left something to be desired when compared to the original three and especially the first two movies. However, when I looked it up again on imdb.com and Wikipedia recently and saw it got overwhelmingly positive reactions, I started thinking maybe the reason I didn't like it as much when I first saw it could be attributed to my having been much younger when I watched the original films for the first time and my disappointment with Mel Gibson's absence, so I decided to see it again with a open mind. Unfortunately, though, I have to conclude that not only do I still feel the same way as I did in 2015, I actually noticed some things this time around that, the more I think about them, even made me start liking it less.
"Fury Road" is a post-apocalyptic action movie, first and foremost and the good news is that its production design is absolutely top notch and the action sequences are pretty much as impressive as the ones in the second movie, which set the bar for every other car chase shot on film or digitally ever since. I didn't care for the CGI used in some scenes, but there's very little in "Fury Road" and, to be honest, I prefer the makers use computer generated crashes when possible rather than destroy real classic cars, so I can live with that. This brings me to my first problem with the film, though. In the first two movies, both the good and the bad guys drove extremely cool vehicles that they were completely crazy about: in the original film, Max had his black-on-black Interceptor, Goose his Kawasaki and even the "regular" Police cars looked good enough for car enthusiasts to have been building replicas of them for years. In part 2, the only truly cool looking vehicle driven by the good guys was the Interceptor but, although it eventually did get destroyed, it still had enough screen time to make every teenager who was even remotely interested in cars dream about owning one himself one day. By contrast, the Interceptor is only in "Fury Road" for about a minute when it gets rolled, stolen, converted, used to try to kill Max and eventually crashed by the bad guys and in total it has but a few minutes of screen time.
Originally I wanted to watch this film with my stepson, who loved Tom Hardy in Venom and I was hoping it would have the same effect on him as "The Road Warrior" had on me and also get him excited about muscle cars. Having seen it again, though, I'm glad he didn't since he probably wouldn't even be interested in the first two afterwards. Allow me to explain: the original two movies were a car lover's dream to watch and their vehicles were as much characters in them as Max and the others, but in this latest installment, only the bad guys are car fanatics and they are part of some perverse V8 engine and fossil fuel worshipping cult. In fact, with the exception of Max, all of the men are presented as having some sick obsession with cars and seeing women as sex objects to be possessed and do with as they please. In "The Road Warrior" both the people living in the compound and the Humungus' gang consisted of men and women, so there seems to have been equality among the sexes, but in "Fury Road", apparently, only the men are responsible for the sorry state or the world and even revel in it while the women are trying to fix it. You can tell that this film is very much a product of its time: Max actually takes a backseat in his own movie and the real heroes and protagonists are a strong warrior woman, a feminist commune of elderly hippies riding motorcycles (out of necessity, not love, like the Goose, mind you) and a group of pregnant ladies who want to leave their possessive husband because they have come to realize "they are not things." If the movie would have come out half a decade later they'd probably have found a way to include the phrase "me too" in it somewhere.
So whereas in the 70s and the 80s the Mad Max movies were a car lover's dream, in these politically correct times the message carried out by "Fury Road" seems to be: cars and their enthusiasts are mentally ill males who in their obsession have brought about the destruction of their bodies and planet, which can only be saved by women and children and the men's only hope at redemption is to help them do so. I read one review here of a fan who seems to dislike everything about "Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome" yet absolutely adored "Fury Road", but it seems strange to me how one can have such a dislike for the tribe of children in that movie, but is completely okay with those pregnant wives of Immortan Joe. At least in the third movie, an effort was made to try and figure out how kids who would have had to grow up in post-apocalyptic isolation with nothing but comic books, some pop culture and old View-Master pictures to learn from would behave, think and speak. Immortan Joe's wives are presented as holding the key to a better future, yet don't seem to have been able to form any deeper thoughts than to come to the conclusion that they don't like being treated as objects.
As for Max, in the original movies he was basically an nice guy, who suffers a terrible loss when his wife, kid and, presumably, best friend all die at the hands of the Toecutter's gang after the law fails to take them off the streets, which causes him to decide to take matters into his own hands and take terrible revenge on them. Then a nuclear event takes place between the first two movies and Max, not having been able to get over the loss he suffered in the first movie, has become a loner trying to survive in a wasted world. However, even though he's lost some of his people's skills, he's still an (anti-) hero that as a younger viewer you could look up to, proof of which is how the Feral Kid behaves around him. But in "Fury Road", Max is not mad, as in angry for having his family and best friend taken from him, but as in insane. He's suffered some kind of mental trauma which is never fully explained, leaving him to see and hear things that aren't there and clearly is in need of psychological help, which, for obvious reasons, he's been left deprived of, causing him to hardly be able to function amongst other people. Although Mel Gibson's Max also isn't a hero in the conventional sense of the word, he's basically still an okay guy, who's become somewhat of a social outcast from having been alone for a long time and having had to survive in a very harsh world. He isn't always on his best behavior around other people, but there's nothing really mentally wrong with him and he is still someone you could look up to and as a kid or teenager dream of being like. The same can't be said of Tom Hardy's Max, though, who badly suffers from P. T. S. D. and only barely manages to hold it together. At first I was bummed that Mel Gibson wouldn't play him anymore, but now that I've seen the movie again, I'm actually glad he didn't since this isn't the Max I love and wanted to see more of and if this is how George Miller wants to portray him now, I'm glad it's another actor's job to do so.
A different "character" that was not only underused but sadly completely missing is Australia. In the first two movies which took place in the post-apocalyptic world, the breathtakingly beautiful Australian landscapes were just as much a part and character of the films as Max and the others, but this time around I can't blame the makers for their absence. Apparently, it had been raining so much in the areas that the previous two movies were shot at that they wouldn't have been credible as a post-apocalyptic wasteland. I was happy to read the Furiosa prequel has been shot "down under" again, but, unfortunately, there was more Australiana missing from "Fury Road". With the exception of Hugh Keays-Byrne, none of the major characters are Australian and most of the accents used throughout the film are English and American. I commend George Miller for having brought him back to again play the lead villain, though. He does by far the best job of the main characters and, although Immortan Joe lacks the depth, philosophy and, dare I say it, charm of the Toecutter, he's the only actor I felt was able to recapture some of the same feel of the characters in the original films. Charlize Theron does an okay job as a warrior woman, but, in my opinion, falls short of what I think is Virginia Hey's perfect combination of beauty and toughness in "The Road Warrior".
All in all, I feel like the Mad Max movies were at their best when they were still domestically produced low-budget Australian films and dealt with basic themes like friendship, love, loss, revenge or simply survival in a wasted world and didn't yet try to become mainstream blockbusters and present family friendly or politically correct values. Like I wrote at the beginning of this review, the action sequences and production design of "Fury Road" are wonderful, but everything else leaves some, or in certain cases even a lot, to be desired.
Breach (2020)
Science fiction horror movie takes me back to the 80s
I wanted to post a quick review of this movie because I really don't think it deserves all the negative reviews it's getting here. "Breach", to me, very much felt like a low-budget science fiction horror movie along the lines of the ones they used to make in the 80s and 90s. It's dark and gritty and, what I found to be refreshing this day and age, not politically correct at all.
One reviewer complained the sets look bad, but I thought they appeared exactly like I expect (and want) the inside of a space ship to look like in a bleak, futuristic world where Earth has gone to hell and mankind is struggling to survive. Both it and its crew reminded me of "Event Horizon" since the atmosphere and look of "Breach" are very similar to that and also reminiscent of "Alien 3". Maybe those two won't go down in history as the best science fiction movies ever made, but I, for one, still enjoyed them and I would much rather watch something like "Breach" than all of those clean and realistic ones that are being produced nowadays, like "the Martian" or "Gravity." Back in the 80s and 90s they made many dark, low budget sci fi movies, which were not very realistic at all, but that wasn't the point. They all took place in a bleak, hopeless future where humanity had destroyed all the beauty in the world and life was basically a daily struggle for survival in whatever setting the movie took place. But after "The Matrix" came out, science fiction changed (although, ironically, those films take place in a similar setting) and the only movies I can think of which were made in that style in the 2000s are "Doomsday" and "The Gene Generation", although they used a bit too much CGI for my taste. 2018's "Death Race 4: Beyond Anarchy" was better in that way and it was very refreshing to me to having been able to watch another film that tries to keep that particular niche alive. As for Bruce Willis, I thought he was very good in "Breach" and delivered pretty much what you'd expect from him in this role: the witty, tough as nails anti-hero that he's become famous for.
So give this movie a chance. Of course it's not as good as "Alien" or even "Event Horizon", but watching it, it brought back memories from when I was a teenager, checking out the science fiction and horror sections of my local video store, looking for exactly this kind of film. I'm happy it got made if only for allowing me to experience that sensation again years later when there aren't even any more of those magical places left in the world.
Death Race: Beyond Anarchy (2018)
Great old school post-apocalyptic movie along the lines of Mad Max and Escape From New York
I'm a big fan of low budget post-apocalyptic movies from the 80s and early 90s, like "The Road Warrior", "Salute of the Jugger" and "Fortress", but with the exception of "Doomsday", I haven't seen a single one I really liked since we hit the 2000s and even that one's car chase at the end was a little too over the top for me. So I had kind of resigned myself to accepting that they may make some more films that are reminiscent of the movies I love, but that I'll just have to accept they'll never again make them like they used to. But then I happened to come across "Death Race: Anarchy" the other day and was very happy to have to admit that, boy, was I wrong!
This film is sort of a mix of "Mad Max" and "Escape From New York": in the near future, an old, deserted industrial town has been turned into a prison, which is run by a private corporation who don't like that the inmates have become present day gladiators by staging a so-called Death Race there, which is broadcast live on the dark web and heavily bet upon. The champion of Death Race is also the natural leader of the prison and, so far, the undisputed winner is Frankenstein, who looks sort of like The Humungus from "The Road Warrior" and finds himself challenged by Connor Gibson, portrayed by Zach McGowan from "Black Sails". His character is a mix of Snake Plissken, Max Rockatansky and Kyle Reese (the cool, tormented one from the original "Terminator", not the annoying one from "Genisys"). McGowan has been open about his love of the original "Death Race 2000" and car movies in general and I guess he wasn't the only one who's old school in this production, because Danny Glover co-stars and the wardrobe department even found the opportunity to slip a little wink to his "Predator 2" days in there. Danny Trejo reprises his role from the previous film and, although he's not in this one all that much, there is such an unbelievable amount of gratuitous nudity in this picture that he still manages to make the most of his limited screen time to give the audience a look at the beautiful Vanina Arias. Which is not to say that this movie is sexist: both Connor Gibson and Frankenstein also appear nude and there are plenty of badass female characters in it, who take no $h!t from anyone. But this is a guys' movie after all and the wardrobe department did seem to have also gotten their inspiration from "The Road Warrior", so they do show plenty of skin. However, this is a car film first and foremost and what I really like about it is that there are only a minimum of digital effects present. The cars are real souped up automobiles and the races and the multitude of crashes are all real with stuntman performing them, which made me feel like I was watching a "Mad Max" movie, only this one actually feels more so than "Fury Road" did. There aren't any digitally enhanced video game combat scenes in it either: the fights are more along the lines of Van Damme's movies from the late 80s. (Maybe that's why Connor shares his last name with Jean-Claude's character in another great low-budget post-apocalyptic picture called "Cyborg"?) And the locations are no less impressive than the action, cars, stunts or women. Most of this movie was filmed in and around a huge ruined steel mill, which I'm pretty sure is the old Kremikovtzi AD in Sofia and the motorcycle races were shot at the Serdika Velodrome in the Borisova gradina park of Bulgaria's capital, next to the abandoned Maria Luisa Bath swimming pool complex, that I suspect they used to shoot one of the opening scenes in. You just can't build sets like that.
"Death Race: Anarchy" is officially the fourth installment in the series, but, in my opinion, it could just as easily have been a stand-alone movie, since it doesn't have that much to do with the first one, which it's a direct sequel to and you don't even need to have seen that to be able to enjoy this one. In my opinion this is much better anyway and should be used as an example of how they should make all post-apocalyptic films, or racing movies in general, for that matter: with real car chases, real stunt men, real crashes and lots of really hot naked women! I never would have thought I'd ever say this about a movie that wasn't made in the 80s, but this has become one of my all-time favorites. Thank you, Don Michael Paul and Zach McGowan, for creating it.
Sofia (2012)
Completely misrepresents the city of Sofia
My girlfriend is Bulgarian so I've traveled to the city of Sofia many times and often watch films that are shot in her home country because the nature there is very pretty and it's fun for me to recognize some of the sights that we've been to together. Even though I had read reviews of this movie which warned the reader to steer away from it, for the most part, I already have quite low expectations when I watch films that are shot in Bulgaria, because they usually have a very low budget and star B list actors. So because of that and the aforementioned emotional connection I'm always very forgiving of them and since I thought it might be nice to see a film which was shot in Sofia that's also actually set there, I figured it can't be as bad as all that and decided to watch it all the same. Boy, was I wrong. This movie was just awful. Bulgaria is absolutely nothing like it's being presented in this film. It seems to me the director mixed up Sofia with Istanbul or some other Arabic city. I've been there a lot and I have never come across people selling Arabic clothes on the streets or seen any local bars with belly dancers. In fact, of all the major European cities I've visited, Sofia probably has the smallest Muslim population of all, but they make it appear like the larger part of its inhabitants are Muslims and because of that, terrorists apparently use it as a base from which to attack the rest of the continent. The score also mostly consisted of Arabic music, which only served to further misinform the viewer about what the city is really like. I must confess that I was so annoyed by all of these misrepresentations that I couldn't pay attention to the story at all. Maybe if you've never been to or know anything about Bulgaria, or Eastern Europe in general, you can still enjoy watching Christian Slater and Donald Sutherland in this, but please keep in mind that Sofia in real life is nothing like they make it out to be in this movie. I read one review of someone saying that he had no idea Bulgaria was so culturally diverse, but that he should have guessed considering its proximity to Turkey, so this film has already completely misinformed him and I just wanted make a little contribution to try and prevent it from doing any more damage. If you'd like to watch a movie which is both shot and set in Bulgaria and that represents the city more accurately, I can recommend "Doubly Identity" with Val Kilmer. That definitely also has its flaws (it represents the country as being under military rule but is set shortly after the fall of Communism to make that more believable), but it's still much more truthful than "Sofia" AKA "Assassin's Bullet", which, of course, isn't very hard considering that they got pretty much everything wrong in that. The films which are shot there but supposedly take place in America are actually way more truthful to what the country is really like, since Bulgaria in real life is just as western as any other member of the European Union.
Conan the Barbarian (2011)
It's actually not bad, but I recommend watching it in 2D
I first watched this version in a movie theater in 2011 which only played it in 3D. I remember at the time I thought they had focused too much on digital effects and that the film was over the top. But since I am a Conan the Barbarian buff and I like Jason Momoa as an actor, I eventually decided to give it another chance and see it on DVD, this time in 2D. It was almost like I was watching a different movie and I can't for the life of me understand why I disliked it so much the first time I saw it. I remembered it being a clean, kid- friendly reboot with lots of over the top action scenes, sort of along the lines of the Marvel superhero movies, but the production design is actually very similar to the John Milius version and it's not far behind on violence and nudity. Of course, it does make use of digital effects, but by far not as often as I got the impression it did when I watched the 3D version and most of the action scenes are actually along the lines of those in the 1982 version or other more traditional sword fighting movies. Maybe I just wanted them to make a sequel to the Schwarzenegger films so badly I never gave this version a fair chance. I still think the original Conan the Barbarian is the superior movie, but now that I have watched it again without any expectations or prejudices (and in 2D), I have to admit this reboot is actually not bad at all and definitely better than the 1984 sequel they did make to the first film.
The Assignment (2016)
Cult movie from the director of "the Warriors"
I don't understand why this film gets such poor reviews. Sure, Sigourney Weavers' weren't the best lines she has ever spoken in front of a camera, but, all in all, I thought "the Assignment" was a decent old school action movie, directed by Walter Hill (of "the Warriors" fame). I felt like Michelle Rodriguez did a credible job as a transgender to the point where, like another reviewer on this website mentioned, I found myself thinking of her as a man, even during the nude scenes, and I thought her performance while she comes to terms with what has happened to her to be very much how I imagine I would feel myself if I would wake up a woman one day. Of course, this is not a psychological drama but an action movie, so the main focus is on that and I thought Walter Hill did a very good job creating a dark, gritty atmosphere, which, combined with a synthesizer soundtrack that reminded me of John Carpenter, plenty of nudity and Michelle Rodriguez' biker jacket to turn this movie into an instant cult classic.
Z Nation (2014)
Much better than expected
When I heard about this show, my first thought was: "oh great, this is going to be a crappy SyFy production looking to cash in on the Walking Dead's success", but when a co-worker of mine told me he started watching and kind of liked it, I thought I'd give the series a shot for myself and I have to say I think it's actually pretty good. At first I thought it was a bit silly the characters kept referring to the living dead as "Z's" and I've never been a fan of fast moving zombies (the ones in the Return of the Living Dead being an exception), but the gore was very well done and at times even more shocking and creepy than in the Walking Dead, I thought the main characters are a bit more likable and I also enjoyed the humor. Which is not to say the show is some kind of a horror spoof, but it does have the occasional funny note, which I think makes it more fun to watch. SyFy operates on a much smaller budget than AMC, though, so at times it's obvious the establishing shots are CGI, but the action and gory scenes are very well done (I especially liked the episode with the tornado), I think the northern setting is really cool, the actors do a good job, the characters are well developed, the zombies don't run all that much anymore as the series progresses and, although the story lines may not be quite as impassioning as in its rival series (each episode is pretty much a story in itself, but does play out against a bigger plot), several scenes did make my jaw drop. I won't say one show is better than the other but both are decent series in their own right. The Walking Dead is darker, gloomier and more serious but Z Nation is more fun to watch and definitely one of the better zombie productions of recent years.
SAF3 (2013)
Baywatch with firefighters, only really, really bad
I've been a Dolph Lundgren fan ever since I watched him in Masters of the Universe, the Punisher and Red Scorpion as a kid so I really wanted to like this show but other than perhaps the soundtrack I can't for the life of me find one positive thing to say about it. It's set in Malibu but was shot in South Africa, which didn't bode well, but I was willing to let that slide for budget's sake. However, whereas Swede Dolph Lundgren at least sounds American and can get away with playing a US firefighter, the South African actors' accents are so thick it's impossible to believe the events are supposed to take place in California. Lundgren may not be an Alexander Skarsgard but as far as action stars go, he's definitely not the worst actor to ever appear in front of a camera. The supporting cast does such a bad job, however, that I felt embarrassed whenever he appeared in the same shot as them. Thank God he was left out of that ridiculous dancing scene! They may look good parading the beach but if you have to turn to "Ivan Drago" to lead the rest of the "talent" in acting skills that's saying something. Unfortunately, the photography is right on par. The scene where a would-be lifeguard saves a little girl is so amateurish I felt like it was done by a hobbyist using an iPhone. At that point I actually thought I must have been watching a children's show because of all the moralizing that was going on, but there were just too many shots of half-naked firefighters in it for that. Halfway through the first episode there's a scene of the main characters gearing up to the tunes of a rock song which led me to conclude the creators must have been trying to remake their "Baywatch" with firefighters on no budget. I'd recommend this series to die hard Dolph Lundgren fans only, but please remember it's really painful to watch. The Expendables movies have revived him enough for filmmakers to get him out of Bulgaria, though so let's hope SAF3 was just a stumbling block on the road back to Hollywood.
Man of Steel (2013)
Ending can't live up to very promising first half
Man of Steel feels like three different movies edited into one. The first installment shows Jor-El (Russell Crowe) trying to persuade Krypton's council to allow him to send his naturally born son, a first in over a hundred years on his home planet, which apparently is in the habit of preconditioning their infants to fulfill whatever need it has, to a faraway planet in order for their race to survive. It's pretty similar to the events that take place in Superman: the Movie, except in this version, Krypton is more of a fantasy world in which its inhabitants ride dragons when they want a change from their more luxurious space craft. It also shows the imprisonment of General Zod and his followers, who are trying to stage a coup in an attempt to purify the planet's bloodline so as to avoid its leaders from making the same mistakes that led to its demise the next time around. The Kryptonians, you see, are a people of parasites, who move from one planet to the next after its natural resources have become depleted. They even have a huge machine to turn every new planet they conquer into copy of Krypton. Think Independence Day, except with Aliens who look human and wear capes. No wonder Jor-El can't wait to send his son away to live among the much nicer human race on Earth.
Which leads us to the second part of the movie, definitely its strongest. We see how a young Kal-El, or Clark Kent, if you wish, learns he's not like the other kids in his class, has to deal with being an outcast and is considered by his peers to be somewhat of a freak. Luckily his earth parents, portrayed by Kevin Costner and Diane Lane, teach him how to live with his, up until then still uncontrolled, superpowers, which to Clark seem more of a curse than a blessing. Although his father thinks it best to hide who he really is out of fear that the world might see him as a threat, he is also convinced there must be some reason for him having been sent to earth. So Clark sets out to try and find out more about himself and goes on a quest that eventually leads him North. Here he first encounters journalist Lois Lane, played by Amy Adams, who has been sent to cover the US Army's discovery of an alien ship that has been buried underneath the ice for thousands of years. Clark learns he can communicate with his late father through the technology on board, finds out who he is and is given the famous tights and cape we have all come to love, except they're missing the swim trunks bit. Unfortunately, by activating the space ship, General Zod (Michael Shannon), who has been freed from the Phantom Zone by the shock wave of Krypton's demise, learns of Superman's location and sets out to find him to recover a device Jor-El supposedly sent to Earth with him, which contains vital information needed to rebuild Krypton and its race.
And here starts third part, which completely negates all the good elements that were so carefully put together in the second. General Zod basically tries to destroy Earth by turning it into another Krypton and wiping out all human life and Superman has to make himself known to the world in order to save it. Which wouldn't be all that bad were it not for the fact that this part basically consists of 45 minutes of over the top CGI fight scenes in which so many of Metropolis' buildings get brought down on top of our hero this movie should have been called "Man of Bricks". It got to a point where one can't help but suppress a couple of yawns. After all, since he's survived the 5th building's collapse and has been thrown through 6 consecutive skyscrapers you don't really worry he might die when Zod and Co bring the 6th down on top of him anymore.
Henry Cavill does a really good job of portraying Superman, though and the idea of him trying to find his place in our world is very well conceived, but where Christopher Nolan managed to bring us a human and believable Dark Knight right up until the end, Man of Steel's final sequence sadly ruins any chance of this film being anything more than Transformers in tights. As is the case with so many action movies, its makers just got too carried away with CGI and the result is so over the top I wouldn't recommend it for anything other than to give the kids something to watch on a rainy day while their parents have company over. A shame, since it could have been so much more.
The President's Man (2000)
Much better than I expected
I feel I should comment on all of the negative reviews this title has gotten. You've got to remember this is a television production from 2000, which is pre-Deadwood, Sons of Anarchy, Justified or The Walking Dead. If you take this into consideration, I thought the makers of The President's Man did a pretty good job. There are a lot of action and martial arts scenes, of a much more violent nature than you would expect from a late 20th century TV movie, and Chuck Norris does everything you expect of him. Although some scenes are a little oversimplified and at times don't paint a very credible image of the workings of the U.S. Army or a drug cartel, the movie kind of reminded me of a lower budget version of Delta Force 2. If you're a Chuck Norris fan I'd definitely give it a shot.
Resident Evil: Retribution (2012)
I enjoyed the first 4 movies but this pretty much killed the franchise
Although the Resident Evil movies have always been somewhat disappointing compared to the video games they're based on, I still rather enjoyed watching the first three instalments and, once I made it through the obligatory Kung Fu scene of Afterlife, even that wasn't too bad. So I was really looking forward to Michelle Rodriguez's return in Retribution but, sadly, I was in for a major disappointment. Whereas the first four movies still had something resembling of a story to tie all of the action sense together, it seems like in this one the makers just got together to brainstorm ideas for their new movie but since they couldn't come up with anything good, they just shot every single idea they did come up with, edited them all together and called it a movie. The result is so messy it's hard to believe it was directed by the same man who made Soldier and Event Horizon. In my opinion, as much as the makers of The Walking Dead got the Zombie genre just right, that's how badly Paul W.S. Anderson missed the ball with Resident Evil: Retribution. The ending does leave an interesting opening for a 6th and hopefully final instalment but it's going to be tough to make up for this one.
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008)
Not at all as bad as I was led to expect
After having read so many negative reviews about this film on the internet, I wasn't sure what to expect, but decided to go see it in the movie theater after all, if only for nostalgia's sake. I have to say, it was much better than I thought it would be and, although I do understand fans' disappointment with some aspects of The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, all in all it was still a real Indiana Jones film. Granted, the plot was a little stupid and didn't really fit in, but the over the top part was over in a few seconds anyway. Also, it was fairly obvious what role Shia Lebeouf's character had in this film from the get-go, but the action sequences, car chases, sets, sense of humor and the general atmosphere is exactly the same as in the first three movies. Indy is still a man in over his head who manages to escape from the most implausible situations by a huge amount of luck and he still doesn't take himself too seriously, especially since he too realizes he's getting a little older.
One point of criticism that I've read a lot about is that the action sequences are too unrealistic because Harrison Ford is supposed to be too old. I really don't understand this. The stunts are of exactly the same style as the ones in the older films and there was no way a 30 or 40 year old archaeologist could have done those things in real life either, so why do people now suddenly complain that the action is unrealistic because Indy has grown older? Granted, the scene where Shia Lebeouf pulls a Tarzan is a little over the top, but that's just one scene and it doesn't even last long. Another complaint I heard a lot was that there is too much CGI in this film. Again, I wonder where people get this idea. Don't get me wrong, I hate CGI effects. Especially when they are just used to show off what the creators can do, like in the new Star Wars films or I, Robot. But in Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, CGI effects were only used when they were really better than traditional special effects and I must say this was done very well and didn't bother me at all, not even the flesh eating ants. How else could they have gotten them on film? Besides, the special effects used for the ending in Raiders of the Lost Ark weren't all that believable either, whereas these new digital effects are. Another critic complained that the movie is too old fashioned, too slow and boring at times. What's wrong with a slower pace? At least Steven Spielberg took the time to actually show the sets in great detail, so you can see that they are built in the same style as the ones in the first three films and that the artists have actually put work into building them. This is something that isn't done anymore in lots of new films that just want to bomb the senses and leave you wondering what exactly it was that you often payed an outrageous price for to go see.
Still, Harrison Ford is 65 years old now, so the viewers will have to accept that this fourth Indiana Jones film is set in 1957, 19 years after the Last Crusade. Indy is living in a different world than he was in the 1930s and the entire movie is built around the Cold War theme. There are testing facilities for nuclear weapons, the bad guys are Soviets and KGB agents, the western world is in terror of Communism and Indiana Jones, now a World War II veteran, has done some intelligence work for the CIA. However, the jungles, car chases, hidden treasures, lost temples, creepy crawlers and the whip all have the same feel as in the first 3 films and the newer 50s style vehicles and cities fit right in, especially since the film was shot in a similar way as in our hero's older adventures. However, it would be nice if Spielberg and Lucas could do a couple more sequels set in the Cold War theme, so this film will not go down into history as the ugly duckling of the Indiana Jones Quadrilogy. Still, in all honesty, I feel some of the reviews on the internet are a bit harsh. The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is definitely my least favorite Indiana Jones film, but it is certainly still worth the look and a lot better than 90% of the other films that have recently been released, like the monstrosities that are Pirates of the Caribbean II and III that seem to score such high marks on this site.
Doomsday (2008)
Rhona Plissken beyond Thunderdome
Being a child of the 80s, I grew up watching the "Mad Max" trilogy, "Escape From New York", "Cyborg" and "the Salute of the Jugger (the Blood of Heroes)". During the 90s I searched video stores for other genre films like "Escape from Absolom (No Escape)", "Freejack", "Fortress" and "Split Second". It was during this time the underrated sci-fi/ fantasy low budget movie "Beowulf" first introduced me to the lovely Rhona Mitra who was to starr in "Doomsday" 9 years later. But in 1999 "the Matrix" single-handedly ended the reign of the post-apocalyptic B movie. It was then replaced by CGI filled monstrosities like "Aeon Flux" or "Ultraviolet", that gave you the impression you were watching a video game, rather than an actual film. Thank god for Quentin Tarrantino, Robert Rodriguez, Rob Zombie and the great George A. Romero, though, who had the notoriety, balls, modest financial means, and love for genre films to revive the low budget horror genre and pave the way for the Brits to create the post-apocalyptic beauty that is "Doomsday". The film is obviously a "love letter" to "Mad Max" and "Escape from New York" with some "Fortress" and "Escape from Absolom/ No Escape" thrown in there, but it is also reminiscent of "2019: After the Fall of New York", "Warrior of the Lost World", "the Bronx Warriors" and "2020 Texas Gladiators". Although "Doomsday" obviously has much nicer sets and better costumes than these Italian rip offs.
In 2008, a killer virus has infected most of the Scottish population and the U.K. government has decided to quarantine the area by building a wall around Scotland, thus wiping out the entire population and killing the virus. However, a couple of decades later, the virus re-emerges in London. The totalitarian British regime has learned of survivors on the other side of the fence and sends in a military team with Aliens-style armor and a couple of scientists to locate the survivors and find out why the virus hasn't killed them. The mission is led by Rhona Mitra, a slightly better looking version of Snake Plissken, complete with missing eye. However, the group is soon taken prisoner, tortured and eaten by a gang of punkers and girls in SM outfits, led by Sol, the Lord Humungus of Glasgow. The rest of the movie takes us on a quest of survival through the ruins of Scotland, accompanied by a synthesizer soundtrack that could have been recorded in 1981 and ends with a slightly humorous Mad Max-style car chase. Even though this may tone down the brutal feel of the first three quarters of the film, "Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome" was not without its funny moments, either.
If you liked "the Matrix", "I, Robot" or "Star Wars: Episodes I, II and III", please do not watch this film. However, if you are a lover of 80s and early 90s post-apocalyptic low budget movies, you will not be disappointed.
Ex Drummer (2007)
Sickly funny but scarily realistic
"Ex Drummer" is Belgian Koen Mortier's feature film debut, based on the book of controversial writer Herman Brusselmans. Set on the wrong side of the tracks of coastal city Oostende, the movie tells the story of Dries Van Hegen, a famous but arrogant intellectual writer who is asked by three social misfits to become a drummer in their band in order to obtain an award in the first rock rally of Leffinghe. Apparently, they thought they would increase their chances at fame and fortune if they had someone with name recognition to perform with them. Dries agrees, not in order to help them out but because he wants to wallow in the filth and misery that these three men's lives consist of, knowing that he can return to the comfort of his own luxury penthouse and have sex with his lovely girlfriends every night. The band's lead singer is Koen de Geyter, a lisping skinhead who spends his days beating up women, basically because they annoy him. The only woman that he is able to have sex with without killing her afterward is his homosexual bass guitarist Jan Verbeek's bald and bulky mother. Her mentally disabled husband, who still lives with her, but who had to be chained to his bed with a restraint jacket in order to prevent him from hurting himself, no longer sexually satisfies her. Apparently she became bald when she caught her son masturbating, causing him to suffer a permanent cramp in his right arm. The band's lead guitar player is Ivan van Dorpe, a 40 something junkie who is living in what can only be described as a pig stile. When Dries becomes acquainted with the man's wife, she immediately informs him her vagina smells bad because it's probably rotting from the inside. The only sane person in this household appears to be their baby girl, who eventually overdoses on cocaine, which was administered by her mother, because she couldn't stand her daughter's crying any longer. During the band's quest for super stardom, they are confronted with more lowlifes from the Oostende region, such as "Big Dick", a man whose penis is so large, he is unable to satisfy a woman sexually without mutilating her and who has a distaste for homosexuals that Dries eagerly exploits in order to settle a personal vendetta with one of Jan's boy toys. Although "Ex Drummer" is so far over the edge it's funny, it confronts the viewer with man's darkest urges and the filth it depicts is sometimes so close to the reality of everyday life, it's almost scary. This is by no means a feel good film and often takes a turn for the dramatic, especially when the characters' background is explained towards the end of the film. This, along with its experimental photography, raw, grungy look and punk rock soundtrack contributed to "Ex Drummer" winning numerous awards such as Best Feature Debut at London's Raindance film festival with, among others, Iggy Pop and the Clash's Mick Jones in the jury. Not recommended for the faint of heart and lovers of romantic comedies, though.
Superman Returns (2006)
Has he really?
Being an 80s kid, I grew up watching the Christopher Reeve Superman movies, so I was a little skeptic about a new film, that obviously couldn't starr the late actor. After all, how could anyone else play Superman than him? I have to say, Brandon Routh did a decent job. If we couldn't get Christopher Reeve, he probably was the second best choice. You can tell he was very much influenced by the first 4 Superman movies, either when wearing cape or glasses. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of Kate Bosworth, who I believe was a very poor choice to play Lois Lane. A 23 year old mother who is the Daily Planet's star reporter? Since Superman has been in outer space for 5 years, that means she was 18 when they were romantically involved. So she would technically still have been in journalism school then... Kevin Spacey on the other hand does an excellent job playing Lex Luther. I was relieved to see the makers have opted to keep the Gene Hackman version and not replace him by some larger than life supervillian. As for the story, this movie is somewhat of a sequel to the 4 Christopher Reeve films. Superman has been away for 5 years, looking for the remains of his home planet Krypton. During that time, Lex Luther has been released from jail, since the Man of Steel neglected to show up in court and Lois Lane has gotten romantically involved with another man and given birth to a son. Luther has once again found his way to Superman's Fortress of Solitude and has stolen one of its crystals in order to wipe the United States out of existence and create a new continent that he can sell to the highest bidder. Sound familiar? In fact, the whole movie is full of references to the first film. It starts off with the exact same opening credits and score and Marlon Brando makes a few appearances from beyond the grave. As for the look, the actors dress like in the 1930s, which, I guess, creates a nice journalistic feel, the Daily Planet's employees being the main protagonists in the movie after all. It also makes for a kind of classic, timeless atmosphere. One thing it does not do, however, is recreate the magic of the first 2 Superman movies, which were set in the glitter and glamor world of the late 70s - early 80s. Lois Lane does not wear shiny evening gowns or live in a Metropolis penthouse, but looks like a (very young) house wife and lives in Wayne Manor. Granted, she's upset with Superman for having left her for five years without even saying goodbye, but there simply is no magic between Brandon Routh and Kate Bosworth in the way that there was between Christopher Reeve and Margot Kidder. This is clearly visible in the pretty lame flying sequence. Remember "Can You Read My Mind"? Well, not anymore, I guess. What happened to the lovely night time shots of Metropolis (Manhattan) or the beautiful wide open landscapes of the American West? I'd have thought that in these warlike days, it would have been nice to add a little patriotism to a Superman movie. After all, isn't he supposed to fight for truth and justice in the American way? The special effects aren't all that great either, actually. Superman: The Movie may have been made almost 30 years ago but its flying sequences were a lot more credible than the flashes of red and blue or lame CGI effects that were used in Superman Returns. Christopher Reeve may have "only" lifted a helicopter to save Lois Lane in his first public appearance, it still had a much more heroic feel to it than when he threw a rocket into space and landed a plane in a baseball stadium this time around. I can't speak for all Superman fans out there but I did not go: "Yeah, he's back!" during the 2 seconds it took him to intercept the plane or his subsequent computerized hovering before the plane's entrance after having saved his favorite journalist. One good aspect, though, is the slow pace, the sets and the music. The Fortress of Solitude and the farm where Clark grew up look and sound exactly the same as in the first 4 films. All in all, I guess you could say the actors, composer and even the director did their best and if we couldn't get another Christopher Reeve movie, I guess this still is a decent effort. Trouble is, the first films were just so magical every other take is bound to leave you feeling a little disappointed.
Grendel (2007)
Too much CGI, not enough cult
I understand this movie was made on a very low budget but that is no excuse for the monstrosity that is Grendel. Deathstalker, The Throne of Fire, Barbarian Queen, Conquest, the Invincible Barbarian were all done on shoestring budgets and poor special effects yet they still managed to create cult classics by adding some scantily clad women warriors and a good sense of humor. The primitive costumes, dark castles and beautiful Bulgarian landscape gave Grendel the potential to be a very good low budget sword and sorcery film, but the makers completely ruined this opportunity by using extremely poor CGI effects and colorless characters. Compare this film to Beowulf (1999). It may not be Citizen Kane but it is a good example of how an entertaining low budget sci-fi/ adventure movie can be made by using credible special effects and appealing characters.
Death Proof (2007)
Surprisingly entertaining
Death Proof is Quentin Tarantino's homage to the B movie genre form the late 60s, 70s and early 80s. Keep this in mind when you watch this film. Like the original low budget flicks, this film has very bad picture quality and sound, terrible editing, silly dialogue, revealing mistakes and bad acting. Of course, these characteristics were all accidental or due to a lack of talent in the original movies, whereas Tarantino has deliberately added these "mistakes" in order to recreate the feel of the old films. This might be a bit confusing or even annoying during the first half hour or so, because, unlike 30 years ago, this movie is not shown in a Grindhouse but a modern theater and you can't help but notice that the bad editing is deliberate and therefor misses the charm of the old B movies. Also, the fact that the film is set in 2007 but shot in a way that would be below standard even 30 years ago, slightly removes the charm it would have had, had it been set in the 70s. However, this changes about 30 min into the movie when cell phones, MP3 players and Japanese automobiles are replaced by muscle cars, references to cult classics and John Hughes movies, old school car chases, stunts and your typical Quentin Tarantino dialogues and soundtrack. The uncut European version could have done without some of the more boring conversations at the beginning of the film, though, but Kurt Russell more than makes up for this when he uses his old charm to talk Vanessa Ferlito into a lap dance and by the end of the film real life stunt woman Zoe Bell and Tracie Thoms will have you roaring with laughter as they seek to get even with Stuntman Mike. Although Death proof might not be quite as impressive as House of 1000 Corpses or The Devil's Rejects, it definitely is just as much fun.
Basic Instinct 2 (2006)
Not as good as the first one but worth a look
I've always had a special place in my heart for the first Basic Instinct movie. Back in the early 90s, you didn't have instant internet access like you have today. So the easiest way for adolescent males to look at naked female bodies was to head over to your local video store and rent any one of the broad selection of outdated low budget action movies that were available to you. Needless to say those films were not exactly top of the line material. But then came along Basic Instinct, a film loved by male teens whose hormones were running amok, adults looking for an exciting thriller, or just curious what all the fuzz was about, and film critics alike. Basic Instinct was special because it was not only sexually provocative (remember the interrogation and bondage scenes) but also had a strong cast, a good storyline, well developed characters, beautiful photography, fast cars and a nice setting. It was a violent police thriller in which the central character and main draw was a pantiless femme fatale with a taste for all things extreme and directed by the accomplished Paul Verhoeven, a Dutchman famous for making for harsh films with a touch of sexual provocation.
Fast forward to Basic Instinct 2. Whereas Cahterine Tramell was the most intriguing figure in the first movie, she was surrounded by other equally well developed characters. Nick Kurran was the borderline cop, played by Michael Douglas, who became obsessed by the beautiful and dangerous Tramell, Jeanne Tripplehorn portrayed the jealous co-worker and Leilani Sarelle was Sharon Stone's lesbian love interest, which was pretty revolutionary in early 90s mainstream cinema.
The sequel shows Catherine Tramell living in London and that's about it. Caught in her web this time around is Stan Collymore, a boring psychologist whose life is influenced by equally uninteresting women: the sexually unsatisfied ex-wife, a mother figure and mentor and some kind of love interest. I suspect the cliché London setting and subsequent cast of unknown actors was done for financial reasons. There is not a whole lot to say about the story. The movie starts off with a famous soccer player getting killed while he's making love to Catherine in her car while she's doing 110 miles an hour in downtown London, which is immediately the most exciting sexual scene in the whole movie. There is one other where Collymore has sex with his would-be girlfriend but that's a poor reproduction of Michael Douglas letting his suppressed sexual appetites rage havoc on Jeane Tripplehorn. The other erotic scenes are pretty lame compared to today's standards, especially after such extreme opening credits and taking into consideration Catherine Tramell's sexy outfits. Why would anyone want to go see an erotic thriller whose love scenes are tamer than a Britney Spears concert? Sharon Stone does look as beautiful and seductive as she did in the first film. However, whereas in the early 90s Catherine Tramell wore sexy outfits, made even more exciting because it was obvious she didn't wear any underwear, she was still pretty elegantly dressed. Her clothes in the sequel are designed for the sole purpose of turning men on.
So all in all, I conclude that director Michael Caton-Jones has pretty much exploited the sexually provocative aspect of the first movie (but not in a very good way, unless the unrated version features a lot of spicy cut scenes) and neglected all of the other aspects that made Paul Verhoeven's film so special. Is it any coincidence he's since gone on to direct the critically acclaimed Blackbook and Basic Instinct 2 was nominated for worst film of 2006? So, if you were an adolescent male in the early 90s, whose sexual fantasies where forever influenced by Miss Tramell or if you just like Sharon Stone, who looks as good as ever, go check this film out, even if it's just for nostalgia's sake. If it's an exciting crime story you're looking for, better go watch one of the other erotic thrillers Basic Instinct paved the way for, like Body of Evidence, Disclosure or Sliver.
Return of the Living Dead: Necropolis (2005)
Zombies with Russian accents?
If you're a fan of the first Return of the Living Dead movie, please don't watch this one. You'll loose ten years of your life from aggravation. The film is supposed to be set in the United States, but was actually shot in Romania and most of the actors' accents are worse than Jurgen Prochnov's on a good day. The Return of the Living Dead: Necropolis won't even qualify as a "good bad cult movie" 20 years from now. Parts 2 and 3 were already pretty bad, but this one is just embarrassing. Trash, Suicide and even Julie Walker will roll over in their graves. I wonder if the makers have even bothered to watch the first three films. Unlike Romero's walking corpses, the Return of the Living Dead zombies are not supposed to die when you shoot them in the head! Nor do they give speeches or box. The movie does have one thing going for it, though: it proves that all those B actors they got playing KGB agents in cheap 80s crime flicks got their accents right after all.
Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut (1980)
A very human Super man
Dick Donner's cut of Superman II can be considered as better than Richard Lester's version, or disappointing, depending on your point of view. If you want to watch a Superhero movie you're going to be a little let down. The Man of Steel in this film does not become human in body only, but displays all the weaknesses ordinary humans possess, including selfishness. The scene where Kal-El talks to his deceased father and expresses his desire to be an ordinary man is developed in a deeper and more credible way than in Lester's version. Superman wants this because he is fed up with serving the human race and longs to be able to share a normal life with the woman he loves, just like everyone else. This trend holds truth on the whole film: Donner profoundly develops the main characters and comes up with a story that makes more sense than the one in the original film. However, the end result is a lot darker. You don't sympathize with Superman as much as you do in the first two films because he simply is not very much of a hero until the last part of the movie. Oddly, though, the film does start out on a much more humoristic note than Lester's cut, but unlike the 1980 version, the comedy simply is not very funny and, at times, inappropriate. Having filmed the first and second film simultaneously but having been fired halfway though completion of Superman II, Donner never had the chance to finish the movie the way he wanted it. Hence, several scenes are cut short, giving the impression that something is missing. For instance, those that are unfamiliar with the original script for Superman: The Movie might find the ending too manufactured: the Man of Steel turns back time once more. However, Donner had originally intended to have the first movie end differently so Lois would have lived. Hence, there would be no need for Superman to turn back the clock. But deadlines meant there was no time to finish the scenes needed for this ending and Donner had to use the one he intended for the sequel instead. That's why there is no kiss to make Miss Lane forget Clark Kent's true identity in the 2006 version. In stead, Donner creates a very touching scene between the two lovers where Lois is the strong one who realizes she and the Man of Steel can never lead a normal life together and Superman is the one who shows weakness again and expresses his desire to still see his one true love only to have to come to terms with his selfishness once more and undo all that has happened. In the introduction, Richard Donner states that the 2006 cut is an idea of what Superman II could have been had he been allowed to finish the project and that is how this movie should be watched. Not as an improved sequel to the first film (the special effects are too incomplete for that), but as a version that sheds a new light on two legendary films and that thanks to Margot Kidder's and the public's incessant requests, has now finally been released for all the fans to enjoy.
Queen of the Damned (2002)
Not worthy of the name Anne Rice
The Queen of the Damned is the third book in Anne Rice's series about the undead, that began with Interview with the Vampire. So, what on earth possessed Warner Brothers to just skip the second and most interesting part? That is just one of many things that is wrong with this movie. Whereas the big screen adaptation of Interview with the Vampire stayed true to the original written work, the Queen of the Damned does nothing of the sort: the story is completely wrong and the vampires are nothing like the ones portrayed in the books. In fact, the only good thing about this film is its soundtrack. If you liked the books, please don't watch this film and just stick to its predecessor. It's not even worth getting worked up over.
Batman (1989)
As good as Batman Begins
I won't claim this movie is better than Batman Begins, but in my opinion it is definitely just as good. Both movies have pros and cons. One thing I liked better about Tim Burton's film is the Bruce Wayne character. Chritian Bale's version, in public at least, is rather snobby and pretentious, whereas Michael Keaton depicts a likable man. On the other hand, Batman Begins tells the story of the Dark Knight himself whereas in Tim Burton's version the Joker rather than our hero is the focus of attention. Both movies though are very dark and heavily influenced by Frank Miller's comics Batman Year 1 and the Dark Knight Returns and are nothing like the monstrosities Batman Forever and Batman and Robin in which Joel Schumacher tried his very best to completely destroy everything that is Batman and that was brought to life so well in the 1989 and 1992 movies. If only Tim Burton would ever be given a chance to go ahead with his original plan to make a film out of the Dark Knight Returns starring Mel Gibson or, why not, a return of Michael Keaton.
Batman Begins (2005)
This is not another superhero movie
Batman Begins isn't another superhero movie in the line of Spider- Man, the X- Men or the Hulk. In fact, even if you don't care for Batman or any of his costumed colleagues, you can still enjoy this film as a good action- thriller. It doesn't thrive on special effects and big action scenes but offers a decent story with lots of attention to character development. The movie is fairly low tech and because it doesn't rely on computer technology in the way other recent superhero movies do, it has an old school feel to it, kind of like an early 80s fantastic film or even Superman: The Movie. Of course, Batman Begins is much darker than Richard Donner's beauty, but the evolution of both main characters from youths, coming to terms with who they are, to caped crusaders is depicted in a similar way. As far as the actual crime fighting goes, this movie puts right everything that was done wrong in Batman Forever and Batman and Robin. Our hero's weapons are not covered with blinking lights, but sober and practical: no computer controlled Batarangs, but ninja stars shaped as a bat. No design costume, but military armor, decorated with a cape and mask. The Batmobile is no skyscraper climbing super car, but a rejected army vehicle put to new use that befits the general atmosphere of this movie. Batman doesn't fight villains in shiny outfits who fly around on supersonic gliders or have tentacles as arms. The bad guys in this film are real people: gangsters, a corrupt warden of a psychiatric ward, a martial arts specialist and lots of crooked cops. If you take into consideration that Batman Begins is based on the Year One comics, written by Sin City's Frank Miller, one cannot help noticing the similarity between Robert Rodriguez' newly created world and the one depicted in this movie. In fact, Sin City could just as well be Gotham City without Batman. So forget Joel Schumacher's monstrosities. In fact, Christopher Nolan has even gone one better than Tim Burton and created a credible movie with a good story, realistic characters and the filthiest setting the world's Darkest Knight has ever called home.
The Punisher (1989)
So much better than the 2004 version
This movie is so much better than the new 04 version. If Batman Begins is the perfect adaptation from comic book character to big screen hero, The Punisher (2004) is the perfect example of how to destroy a great comic book character. The first thirty minutes are boring and unoriginal. Whereas Christopher Nolan made good use of the first half of Batman Begins to present a credible transition from rich man's son to Dark Knight, Jonathan Hensleigh bores viewers to death by picturing Frank Castle as the perfect American family man who then loses his beautiful wife and perfect son in a cheap Mad Max rip off. In contrast, the 1989 low budget but far superior version started off smack in the middle of the action with a seriously disturbed ex cop already on the rampage and the reason for his decline into madness was gradually explained by means of flashbacks and memories form Louis Gousset Jr trying to bring his old friend back into a sane life. But whereas the comic book Punisher, brought to life by similarly huge 6' 6" Dolph Lundgren in the first movie, becomes a bitter, meaner than hell, cold blooded killer with no compassion whatsoever, the 04 Frank Castle turns into your friendly neighborhood watchman who uses an ice cream cone to "torture" his first victim. Batman Begins also has its share of humor, but it is subtle and not out of place. The bad guys don't fare much better. Whereas Jeroen Krabbe also had his share of trouble with the Yakuza in the 80s version, at least he was a serious gangster not to be taken lightly. John Travolta is a looser who can't stand his own against other mobsters and is being pushed around by his wife. Message to all Punisher fans: go rent the 1989 version or just stick to the written word, but don't spent any money on this monstrosity which shows no respect whatsoever to a great comic book series.
The Punisher (2004)
Where is Dolph Lundgren when you need him?
If Batman Begins is the perfect adaptation from comic book character to big screen hero, The Punisher is the perfect example of how to destroy a great comic book character. The first thirty minutes are boring and unoriginal. Whereas Christopher Nolan made good use of the first half of Batman Begins to present a credible transition from rich man's son to Dark Knight, Jonathan Hensleigh bores viewers to death by picturing Frank Castle as the perfect American family man who then loses his beautiful wife and perfect son in a cheap Mad Max rip off. In contrast, the 1989 low budget but far superior version started off smack in the middle of the action with a seriously disturbed ex cop already on the rampage and the reason for his decline into madness was gradually explained by means of flashbacks and memories form Louis Gousset Jr trying to bring his old friend back into a sane life. But whereas the comic book Punisher, brought to life by similarly huge 6' 6" Dolph Lundgren in the first movie, becomes a bitter, meaner than hell, cold blooded killer without compassion, the 05 Frank Castle turns into your friendly neighborhood watchman who uses an ice cream cone to "torture" his first victim. Batman Begins also has its share of humor, but it is subtle and not out of place. The bad guys don't fare much better. Whereas Jeroen Krabbe also had his share of trouble with the Yakuza in the 80s version, at least he was a serious gangster not to be taken lightly. John Travolta is a looser who can't stand his own against other mobsters and is being pushed around by his wife. Message to all Punisher fans: go rent the 1989 version or just stick to the written word, but don't spent any money on this monstrosity which shows no respect whatsoever to a great comic book series.