after-hour_dvd_collector Reviews

Tomb Raider (2018)

An average movie that can't hold a candle to the video game

[5/10 · 12 April 2018]

Though I'm not an avid gamer, I did actually play through the 2013 video game this movie reboot seems to be based on. I'm saying "seems to be", because while there are action bits and pieces that do seem to come straight from the game, the overall story is too by-the-numbers and watered down, something the game (quite impressively penned by Rihanna Pratchett, daughter of the late Terry "Discworld" Pratchett) managed to avoid.

The movie follows young Lara on her first quest (after some introductory parts that neither make much sense in context nor explain anything beyond the most basic motivation of the characters and seem to last half of the movie but were actually much shorter ... go figure), and of course things go awry as soon as the search for her missing father starts; she falls from one danger into the next and ends up on an island together with an ill-written corporate evildoer with a motivation of "because". We get some more action - some straight from the game - and a sudden leap in Lara's expertise over the course of half a day that's neither explained nor in any way well written, and some Bruce Willis commemorative moments of "falling from high places, getting impaled, then getting better because of the power of stitches".

What we don't get from this movie is anything that made the game so great: the twists, the turns, the huge vistas, the claustrophobic caves, the constant sense of danger and urgency, the struggle against overwhelming odds; instead, it's just one Indiana Jones flashback after the other (minus anything supernatural) with actors who could do so much better had they been given anything in the script to work with. Instead they need to act out dated old scenes and pick choice straws from a hat that only contains the variations "dumb" and "more dumb".

I had hopes this would be good, mainly because the 2013 video game did so many things right and had truly memorable scenes (ugh ... just remembering the climb up the antenna still creeps me out) but this movie ... is just not good. It's average popcorn at best. I'm giving it an undeserved 5/10 and that's possibly nostalgia talking here. For a game just five years old.

Heavenly Sword (2014)

Possibly good intentions, but bad production values

[3/10 · 22 October 2016]

I stumbled upon the Heavenly Sword blu-ray more by accident at the bargain bin of a local electronics store. Being an ever hopeful viewer of video game movies (despite many previous experiences with the genre), I've looked up some gameplay videos ("that's actually pretty cinematic") then went out and bought the movie. Since I've already committed the error, you may not need to repeat it yourself.

It's bad. And sad. If I understand the closing credits right, this movie was made by a small team (some 20 people?) on a shoestring budget of 6 million, and I generally applaud small independent productions, even if they aim high and end up .. not quite as high. Enthusiasm covers a lot of cinematic sins.

Heavenly Sword however was a wholly different thing, especially compared to the game it originates from. The game has mo-cap actor legend Andy "Gollum" Serkis and the late Terry "Discworld" Pratchett's daughter Rhianna at the helm, and impressive graphics for its time and hardware (2007). It's a mixture of hack-and-slay, sniping, quicktime events and a whole lot of action-adventure tropes rolled into a playstation title.

The movie is significantly less than that. Its storyline is at times disjointed, its animations and environments are just bad compared to the game, and the framing and editing of scenes is a step down from the game's cut-scenes as well. I needed to watch the game footage to get the movie's storyline in order, and noticed that the game manages to elicit more emotional response than the movie.

How a movie that came out in 2014 manages to look worse than the real-time graphics of a game from 2007 (with the assumption that - since it's an official franchise product - the producers must've had access to Sony's graphics and animation data that the game already had 7 years earlier), is completely beyond me.

Lowlights are the three boss fights, with the showdown against the water witch being the absolutely worst, both in terms of action and in terms of graphics. Some more doubtful design decisions are sweeping camera moves during quiet "character moments", and turning the moats of the tyrant's impressive fortress from the game's exaggerated-yet-realistic water into ludicrous lava.

Using the gameplay as a template, shortening and framing the combat scenes cinematically and rendering the cutscenes with more advanced and fine-tuned facial animations and cloth/hair simulation could've made this into an impressive production.

As it is, it was interesting to watch, but definitely not enjoyable. Can not recommend this. 3 / 10, and this includes a pity bonus of +1 point.

Warcraft (2016)

Seen it. Loved it. Two thumbs of two.

[9/10 · 26 May 2016]

So, Blizzard/Jones/Universal, basically, when is the next one due?

Went to see it in a group of five (oh yes, the jokes just write themselves, eh? Classic setup: Tank, 3x DD, Healer :-) ).

Loved every minute of it. Not going to spoil stuff, just a few remarks:

* it helps if you already have a general idea of what it's about. The really basic stuff should suffice, things like e.g.: wizards. knights. orcs. dwarfs. a hint of elves and space goats. vaguely medieval. magic that goes crackle.

* I didn't perceive the decoration/weapons/armor to be "plastic" or "fake looking".

* Liked the CGI. Level of detail: awesome. Occasional weirdness in the background. Noticed it, didn't give a hoot.

* damn, some stuff seemed to me pretty dark/gruesome for a PG-12 (German) movie.

* hated the 3D. Cinema's fault (bad L/R channel separation, maybe the glasses, the screen or the projector. Need to get this one again on 3D Blu-ray.

* German dub is OK. Some snarky dialogue to bring some fun into the overall setting caused the intended response from the audience. Definitely didn't feel overwrought.

* that story moves fast. Like, "don't get up to take a leak" fast.

* Director's Cut. Director's Cut. Director's Cut. See? Said it three times. Now it's got to happen. Eh? EH? ;-)

* I had no problem following the story. The others with me didn't have one either. It probably helped that we're not movie critics who have to take notes during the viewing.

* In some places **spoiler** (tavern after botched negotiations) **/spoiler** the change of settings and emotions seems a bit too fast.

* Didn't develop too much attachment to any one character, but "got" their motivations quite clearly. So what? Felt extremely entertained anyway.

* Uh, one more thing: Two guys with brown hair and knight getup? Yeah, sure, one has a crown, but … how am I supposed to tell them apart?

Ah, that's mostly just me nitpicking. Here's the resumé, speaking for five people ages 12 to 45: LOVED EVERY MINUTE OF IT. WANT MORE. NEED TO STOP GRINNING. WHY AM I WRITING ALL CAPS?

Phew. OK. Time to cool down.

There. See? Opinion voiced. It's mine. MINE. Want your own? Go see it.

Word of advice: You better like fantasy stuff that goes "bang" and "crunch" and "crackle", or WARCRAFT the movie isn't going to do much for you. If you do, if you were e.g. "Bored of the Rings" of people walking ways where eagles could've easily flown ;-) , then this one may be something for you. It's kind of, like … yeah, "Willow" (but different) on fast forward.

Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005)

Huge effort, big production values, weird design decisions, cringe-worthy dialog.

[4/10 · 25 December 2007]

Having just re-visited Star Wars Episode III on DVD, i'm left wondering at a few weird scenes and the general stupidity of the movie. Half of the characters' motivation to do something must've happened off screen, the worst by far being Anakin's fall to the "dark side". Over what, exactly? He's seen the damage the Sith have done, he's had the emperor reveal himself IN PERSON, and yet ... ah, i'm not willing to go there. Too soap-opera like...

Instead, let's focus on some of the "slapstick gags", like: - a coughing ROBOT. Yes. Robot. Not even Cyborg, as we later see that he's a machine without lungs or anything resembling a respiratory tract. Except for the odd heart inside. Yet he's coughing! Oh, and he's the "secondary villain". Huh?! - R2D2's scenes with Obi-Wan's communicator/cell phone. (cringe) - Big, bad robots slipping on machine oil. - Same robots instantly catching fire and burning up to scrap. Model "Pinto", or what? Way to go, boys. T-800 must be really proud of you.

And the dialog in general. Ugh. All in all, this has left me with a feeling of watching two hours of re-enacting a comic book, right down to the speech bubbles...

In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale (2007)

Not THAT bad. Have seen worse, have seen a lot better.

[3/10 · 8 December 2007]

Just coming back from a double feature (In the Name of the King + The Golden Compass). All in all, ITNOTK felt just like an overlong TV feature. Some weird choices when it comes to editing (especially three locations at once in the final battle scenes, with a cut at about every ten seconds - so much for developing any kind of tension...). Image quality was uneven, especially when it came to "souped-up" scenery with the castles or the evil's lair, which seemed blurred or coarse compared to the close-ups of the characters. Some laughable ideas (using catapults in a forest? Suuuure...). Dialoge was really weird at times (at least in the German version), just short of holding up signs saying "LISTEN UP! THIS IS MEANT TO BE PROFOUND AND/OR MOVING!" (of course, being neither - just talking slowly and incoherently is most likely not character development...), while at other times it was ... like something straight from a certain group of New Zealand TV fantasy series of the nineties ;)

Impressive list of cast members, though their characters are all a bit flat. Like, "slide through beneath the door" flat. Not even cardboard. The combat scenes are fast-paced, almost all the time in close-up (aka "what's-going-on" mode), except for the final fight, which was along the lines of "who can spot the most MATRIX imitations". The evil wizard (Ray Liotta? who cares...) somehow lacks any qualities of being someone you love to hate, *spoiler?* combined with evil's usual incompetence when dealing with the almost defeated good guys. */spoiler* The good king (Burt Reynolds) seems more bored than bothered by the events throughout the whole film. Ron Perlman is seen without a ton of make-up. Camera knows of two color tints for the film: brown for all the outside scenes, and reddish brown for all the dungeon scenes. Sky is generally either blaring white or pitch black, image contrast is harsh, and on some occasions when the camera sweeps across the (rather nice) landscape, the results are blurry blotches. Some nice stunts and fight choreography (while the camera does it's best to hide that by shaking and moving), but that's about it.

All in all, slightly below-average fantasy fare. Feels like two hours of a role playing game cut-scene, and not in a really good way.

The Wild (2006)

Bearable as "technology demonstration", but doesn't hold a candle to real storytelling

[2/10 · 19 October 2007]

Since it was on sale at (a certain well-known online store), i've added it to my collection of 3D animated movies. As a technology demo, it sure was nice. Oooh, just look at this: water, hair, smoke, secondary motion, timing, all there. As a movie trying to tell some kind of involving story, it was NOT. Even the animation style, what i considered something of a hallmark of Disney, was uneven - switching back and forth between "naturalistic" and "cartoony" in what felt to be all the wrong places. The story was disjointed, weird (ugly-weird, not funny-weird) and seemed like "designed by committee", which usually is a sure-fire way to kill good storytelling. (Not saying i'd recognize good storytelling if it hit me in the face, but this movie had me going "uh-what now?!" far too often.) Well, now that Pixar's taken over Disney Animation, there's hope such an embarrassing thing won't happen again...

Epic Movie (2007)

Wow. Just ... wow. Someone actually dared to make this movie.

[6/10 · 12 May 2007]

... and me and two friends went to see it. Double feature, right after Spiderman 3. Having been warned by other friends (well, one, at least), and the low rating here. End result? Well, i've learned that nothing beats seeing a movie in person. Was it gross? Definitely. Was it stupid? Of course. Subtlety of a steam-hammer? Check. Effects on the cheap side? Yes. Trampling all over cherished highlights of great movie making? Right-o. Overuse of bodily functions? Check. Hitting below the belt? - Belt? Which belt?

And it was some 90 minutes of the most immature fun i've had in years, mostly because this movie DARED to do all this. I've not seen something that high on the absurdity scale for a long, long time. Mind you, despite its total lack of dignity and/or cinematic integrity, glaring disregard for continuity etc., you need to have A LOT of references at hand at any given moment of the film. MTV, Chocolate factory, M:I, X-Men, DaVinci code, Pirates of the Caribbean, Narnia, Potter, cheap kung-fu movies ... all thrown into the blender, highest setting. Whoever wrote this, they've spent a lot of time inside a cinema over the last years.

The storyline? Who you're kidding? If at all, i'd guess it had a design guideline, which maybe read something like that: "Didn't you hate that annoying talking beaver from Narnia? And that wheel thing from Pirates of the Caribbean! Didn't you wonder how all those Narnia hybrid creatures came to be? And don't get me started about that creepy Willy Wonka! Well, LET'S SHOW THEM how much we hated that! Hey, call that Star Wars fan group you mentioned, ask them if they want to be on screen ..." etc. etc.

Would i recommend it? No way. Then again, the exceptionally bad reputation made me curious, Plan-9-curious. Not expecting anything, i went away amused. It may not be for everyone. You wouldn't want to show it to your parents. Or your kids, either. It may not even work for a second viewing. But, it worked for me, on that one day today, at that one viewing. And for a movie, that's good enough for me.

Ice Age: The Meltdown (2006)

Slightly disappointed...

[4/10 · 12 April 2006]

Is it just me, or had this movie "Part 2" written all over it? The story was content-free, and any kind of tension there was didn't come from the characters interacting (which was the fun part of the original Ice Age), but from the outside threats, and THOSE had "obvious" not written, but spray painted all over them. And, even worse, whatever happened was just so very predictable. That was the worst letdown compared to Part 1 - oh wait, i'm forgetting the musical interludes. After Pt. 1, i had hoped for a sing-along free animation feature, and right when you least expect it, when there's at least a bit of tension, BAM! Singing, dancing, musical fun... gah.

On the whole, it felt like a not-very-good collage of fun parts, action parts, "haven't we seen something similar in part 1" action parts, some overlong and pointless musical interludes, the inevitable comic relief parts... (most of the time thrown in where it caused the most nerve- grating effect...)

Design: 10 - Content: 3. At least that was the combined verdict of our monthly cinema group.

The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe (2005)

I'm getting too old for that...

[4/10 · 17 December 2005]

OK, so i've sat through the movie. And the end credits. I was definitely impressed by the work that went into the effects, the sets, the animation, etc. etc.

Other than that, i'm feeling rather empty after two hours and twenty minutes. It seems like the film doesn't really know what to do with the story. Sure, we have that battle at the end. Sure, some of the creatures (and their movements) are really impressive. Would you just look at that incredible fur animation? Woah. And we see a lot of people (and animals) fight each other, because, well, it's good vs. evil, and of course, it's a long hard fight, and good wins because it's able to hit evil where it hurts, etc. etc. but in the end, i really didn't care for any of the characters, no matter how often the camera returns to the dramatic face close-ups of kids staring into the lens with possibly important meaning. The more the SFX become believable (talking animals, fantasy creatures etc.), the less believable the whole world they're supposed to create becomes. Narnia (in the movie) is the most detached environment possible: on one hand, all the weapons look like they're going to really, *really* hurt if applied, on the other hand, they must have non-sticky coating or all these creatures are just filled with straw... at least for me, the realistic violence and its obvious non-consequential nature in the movie just don't mix. Give me the cheap background projections, the wires, the unbelievable boss-fighting move or stop-motion trick, any kind of honest fake that says "hey, we're telling you an original story, so just imagine/believe us that this isn't the cardboard the leading character's wig came in, but imagine it IS the shrine of the sword of weird-sounding-name" over that polished fake of this Disney Narnia any time...

The whole film conjures so many other memorable moments in film history that it was more like a two-and-a-half hour collection of "whoa, just like Lord of the Rings" or "my, doesn't she just look like Andersen's Snow Queen? Just not really that evil..." or, worst, "yeah, who didn't see that coming from a mile away / now who wrote that dialog?"

If it's supposed to be a kid's movie, then it's far too "pseudoreal" in its scenes of violence - and for grown-ups it's even less real, it's utterly fake. Aslan biting the evil queen's head off (off-screen, we're doing family-friendly Christmas entertainment after all...) and then turning around without even a single stain? I know cats are cleanly, but c'mon... on the other hand, maybe witches don't bleed. Don't know, don't really care, too... though she had some nice swordplay a few scenes earlier, i'll give her that. Now *that* was really cool... :)

And seeing analogies to the bible in this film, in my opinion, tells more about yourself than it does of the story. Feel free to disagree with me, but remember that in about every other fantasy novel, someone's back from the dead on a regular basis. Mighty popular these days, keeping the leading character around because he/she/it knows how to have the local magic/technology/midichlorians at hand... but, sorry to break this to you, that does not make them Jesus, or a symbol for him. Could as well be Atréju of the Neverending Story, or Gandalf the Grey/White, etc. etc.

Oh well, i'll catch the other parts on cable TV some year or other just for the awesome scenery and CGI animation, but this won't lure me into the cinema come next Christmas...

P.S.: No, i've not yet read the book, and after that film, i doubt that i will...

Shrek 2 (2004)

Somehow disappointed - probably expected too much.

[4/10 · 31 August 2005]

(Obviously, what i'm saying here is is just my opinion on it - feel free to disagree)

Shrek 2 - i'm not sure, but i somehow expected a bit more than the lots of painfully obvious parodies. Throughout the film, i had that feeling of a bad Disney direct-to-video follow-up to a successful movie. The character animation seemed a bit stiff in places, like something you'd expect from an animation designer that has nothing to work off except maybe a mirror next to his computer screen. Wasn't it supposed to be a cartoon/comedy thing...? Then why do most characters stand/move/gesture like a lifeless second class stage act? This is an animated feature - which is about the same as saying "anything IS possible".

Don't get me wrong, there are a lot of fascinating scenes and hilarious ideas, but after the movie was over, it felt completely hollow/pointless/empty/wasted time... i guess all of those obvious pokes at other movies somehow drowned its own story. Shrek 1 i saw at the cinema, AND i had to get the DVD once it was out. I did not get to seeing Shrek 2 on the big screen, but after watching the DVD, i'm sorry to say that i am glad i DID miss it. Remember, MORE of the same thing is not necessarily good...

4 out of 10 after first viewing. Maybe it'll grow on me over time - then again, the same will one day be true for mold... ;)