Change Your Image
airlight-europe
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Man of Steel (2013)
One of the most frustratingly underwhelming experiences I've had in cinemas
After watching Man Of Steel, my opinion of pretty much everyone involved in a creative capacity was substantially lowered. To see the product of such a talented collection of filmmakers, many having created films I've thoroughly enjoyed, be so joyless and feel so unfinished and rough around the edges and blunt, is very disheartening. Ultimately after the film was over, it really felt like I had watched an imitation of a blockbuster film, made by people who just didn't know what they were doing, or trying to say.
The movie is technically brilliant. CGI is superb. It was shot on film using anamorphic lenses, which I really appreciate for the look it creates. But what the film actually captured, and what the CGI was overlaid on top of, the actual movie, the story, is a flatline. The filmmakers just strung together a bunch of trailer shots and told Hans Zimmer to "do that thing you do", and that is it. There is no substance here. There is almost no character interplay, so many scenes basically only has two characters interacting. There is no effort from the filmmakers to actually weave the characters in the film into an engaging storyline, playing multiple characters off each other, exploring the dynamics of superman having two father figures. Superman has only sporadic dialogue, of which only a small percentage actually has substance and isn't just written to be a cool soundbite for the trailers.
The rest of the film is just a blur of CGI destruction imagery you would be hard pressed to differentiate from Transformers or Star Trek, which I was devastated to realize while in the cinema. The last 3rd of the film is in essence a particle effects demo from the effects houses involved.
I really cannot recommend this film to anyone. If you haven't seen a few previous films that destroy cities on massive scales it might still be a novelty you won't regret spending money on, but for anyone who wants to watch a movie with characters that engage you emotionally, stay away until you can watch it free of charge. Considering the film wanted to explore the character, and the huge possibilities that lie with Clark Kents dual heritage, where he belongs, who he is as a person, this film is one of the biggest creative failures in recent memory.
Martyrs (2008)
I'm practically speechless
I just saw this movie about 15 minutes ago, and I am still in some sort of shock from it. It is relentless, atmospheric, and unbelievably brutal. The violence depicted in the movie is so realistic I am still stunned I saw what I actually saw. There are movies a lot more bloody, chaotic and visually disgusting than this, but this is the first time I feel literally traumatized by a movie.
The only thing I really feel I can comment on at this point is the performances of the actors in the film, which is nothing short of incredible. Generally the acting was so convincing I felt more like I was watching a documentary than a work of fiction, and to have this level of performance consistent throughout the horrendous events amazes me to no end.
Also I should mention make-up, which is second to none, and helps things seem incredibly authentic.
If you are willing to endure something that will most likely shock and disgust you to no end, do not hesitate to see this movie. Rarely have I seen more impressive acting.
Universal Soldier: Regeneration (2009)
Brooding, Bloody & Brutal.
This movie was surprisingly good. It mostly takes place in and around the Chernobyl reactor area. Some people are taken hostage, and they are in need of rescue.
It's place in the Universal Soldier series is not an easy one to pinpoint. I've only seen the first one from 1992 and "Universal Soldier: The Return" from 1999. It doesn't compare to either in terms of tone or feel. Some original characters are in the film, but that is about it. The best thing to do when viewing this movie would probably be to forget any UniSol film other than the first one, and from that one only bring the knowledge of the basic events and characters, and the concept of the UniSol program. "Regeneration" is very different in style, tone and execution to the original 1992 film, so if you expect any continuity in these areas, you might be disappointed. Luc Deveraux is portrayed as a broken man, if he can even be called that anymore. Not much is shown of his everyday life, other than the fact that he sees a psychiatrist and has problems with his memory. If you ever are going to accept the premise of people who are killed being brought back to life and used as brainwashed genetically enhanced soldiers who can even be "programmed" like computers before being sent into a war zone, this movie portraying them as semi-zombie hunks of meat is probably as realistic and thematically cohesive as you are going to get (again, forget any previous UniSol movie where Van Damme cracks smiles, or has kids, or jokes around with other UniSols).
It has a very dark tone throughout, and the plot and events are very straightforward. The movie is more in the area of horror/action than the original films action with mild comedic moments. There are basically no humorous elements in the script at all, no romance and even no fairly light moments.
The acting is quite passable, and but for a few examples no one stands out as either good or bad. Since the movie is not very "Hollywood" in being overly dramatized or containing witty comments etc, actors get by well by just keeping it simple.
The action and combat sequences are very nicely filmed and choreographed and are the highlight of the film. The musical score is very bare-bones and atmospheric with mostly moody underscore and percussive elements, and contains no string elements to evoke emotion or brass to punctuate moments of action.
See if it you like "realistic" and unforgiving action (think the recent Rambo film) and consistency in tone and execution, and if you like the original film, or the general concept. Also if you are drawn to films with a quite hopeless, empty or apocalyptic atmosphere.
Avoid it if you want a more conventional "Van Damme-film", or expect any humor or easily digested entertainment.
The Dark Knight (2008)
Great film, but lacks the emotional impact of Batman Begins.
The Dark Knight is a great movie.
Unfortunately, little niggly things keep it from being truly great. Editing choices, pacing of certain scenes, omitted scenes where we are left to assume something has happened, all keep it from being the organic experience Batman Begins was. The story is also a lot denser and cluttered, which isn't a bad thing in itself of course. But I felt that the time taken just to remember who was who (and what they looked like when we briefly saw them 30 minutes earlier in the film) kept getting in the way of me just absorbing the movie.
The one thing that I felt was truly brilliant about Batman Begins was that it was a movie you could "feel", the story didn't get in the way of the atmosphere the filmmakers were trying to create. It felt like they had stripped the dialog down to the bare minimum, and they left the rest of the storytelling to the music and visuals. I thought it felt much more focused and engaging. This focus on atmosphere, and delivering the emotional heart of the film through music, also allowed them to take some, when viewed out of context, fairly cheesy or out-of-place lines of dialog, and somehow make them very powerful and moving, even memorable.
If they release a Director's Cut of The Dark Knight, where they have my permission to gladly add 20 minutes of material removed during editing (gore and violence scenes, possibly small omitted scenes needed to make the story flow better and to make the narrative a bit more clear and engaging rather than feeling like you are just crudely hopping between scenes at times), then The Dark Knight could be as awesome as it might be able to be.
A good example of the problems the movie suffers from can be found when you examine the use of the musical score in the film. In Batman Begins there were many long scenes where the music was allowed to really take its time, to build emotionally over several minutes and really carry the film from an emotional viewpoint. In The Dark Knight, there are almost no such moments. Sometiems there is a touching 20 second scene crammed between 2 violent or chaotic scenes, and the music tries desperately to infuse some emotional support for that scene, which is almost pointless when it happens. 20 seconds isn't nearly enough to take a viewer from excited to feeling sadness or love. Instead it almost feels kind of insulting when you realize what just happened, and it takes you out of the movie a bit as well.
Overall I feel it is a great movie with great acting, great action and a rich and engaging story which is more eventful and dense than the first film. The fact that I felt the movie (already well over 2 hours long) could have benefited from another 20 minutes of material, to sort out some moments of unclarity and just make the story more engaging and connected, speaks volumes about the quality of the quality work represented on screen. But certain issues, with unnatural scene progressions, too tight editing that doesn't allow the emotional message in a scene to fully sink in, editing that skips between events too much rather than taking one thing at a time, and omitted scenes or events, together with a story that I feel could really benefit from extended scenes and more room to breathe at times, keeps it from being as emotionally engaging and essential as Batman Begins was.
I give it 8/10, but the more time passes since I saw it, the more it's leaning towards a solid 7/10.
Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby (2006)
Has potential but misses the mark.
Having liked Will Ferrell's earlier work in "Old School" and particularly "Anchorman", I was excited to see this movie. In my opinion it falls short of being a funny movie. The script itself just isn't as funny as you might expect, and while some parts are kinda fun, they are either too stupid or too long-drawn to become laugh-out-loud funny. And apart from Sasha Baron Cohen who appears as Will Ferrell's NASCAR nemesis, most characters are pretty dull. "Anchorman" had goofy but lovable characters, and a script that didn't take itself seriously at all. Talladega Nights has neither in my opinion.
It isn't a bad movie at all, but for me it is just a little dull, and not as clear and polished as "Anchorman" was. Most of it I guess just comes from the fact that the story told in Talladega Nights isn't as good, plain and simple.
BloodRayne (2005)
Most people will want to stay away
BloodRayne (2005)
####_General Notes_####
Firstly, this movie is not nearly as bad as director Uwe Boll's previous movies, in particular "Alone In The Dark" and "House Of The Dead". The overall production is way better and all in all, this movie is more straight-forward than the others, which unfortunately doesn't mean anything considering the quality of "AitD" and "HotD". I hate reviewing a movie by largely comparing it other movies by the same director, but in the case of Uwe Boll it is probably the best way to go to get a fair view of the movie.
On to the specifics of the movie, categorized in no particular manner.
####_Dialog_####
The dialog might not be as cheesy as in "HotD" or "AitD", but it still sucks. Ben Kingsley, who plays the evil vampire Kagan, appears like he is reading his lines off a cue card, after having taken a large dose of animal tranquilizers. Hands down the worst performance I have ever seen by any actor in any movie, ever. He just mumbles through his lines with no inflections, no pauses for dramatic purposes or any feeling at all. Actually, this is a nice reason to see the movie. There are a few laugh-out-loud moments thanks to Mr. Kingsley. The rest of the actors are not as bad as Kingsley, and some performances are actually not bad enough to distract too much. Obviously with the actors in this movie mostly everyone is performing way below what they are capable of.
####_Cinematography_####
The only decent part of the film. People wear clothes that look old and walk around in environments not containing paved roads. Looks 18th century to me. Approved.
###_Directing and Editing_####
In order to judge the skill level of Uwe Bolls directing and editing, the only example needed are the action sequences and sword-fighting in this movie. No one seems to be able to handle a sword, and in most sequences the bad guys attack someone, swing their sword once, then simply freeze and wait to get cut down. Camera angles and editing are generally incoherent and some actions by actors, due to editing, seem ridiculous. For example, someone lies down and fires a crossbow, cut to person being his by arrow, followed by a short fight between said person and another actor, AFTER which the person who fired the crossbow can be seen getting up from the floor, which means that he apparently just lay there on the floor for a while after firing the crossbow, whilst his comrades are engaged in life and death combat with swords and other dangerous weapons all around him. The action scenes are the least exciting parts of the movie, which might not be what the filmmakers were aiming for.
####_Story_####
To be honest, I didn't care at all about the story. It wasn't explained at all the motivations of the "good guys", and why they did what they did, other than the usual "Good versus Evil" reason. As a consequence there is no tension at all in the story. It is just a standard story of revenge set in the middle ages with vampires.
In short, the heroine Rayne (Kristanna Loken), a Damphir (half-human, half-vampire), watched her mother get killed by Kagan when she was just a small child. As an adult she wants revenge, but to do that Rayne needs to find some powerful artifacts left over from the body of a very powerful vampire who died a long time ago. These artifacts are stored at various random places, including a monastery where monks are guarding it.
Needless to say, it is never explained why the monks, who are well aware of the powers of the artifacts, just don't destroy the bodypart/artifact they are guarding. I guess it could be any reason you can think of. It sure isn't explained by anyone in the movie. Anywho, the artifact at the monastery is obviously extremely powerful, which is why they have their best men guarding it. Actually make that "man". Yeah, they have one guard in front of the room where the artifact is. A sleeping guard. But hey, I guess that is enough, when you consider that the monks have booby-trapped the artifact room. But only with contemporary technology of course. Such as HUGE MANSIZED FREAKING RAZOR DISCS that crisscross through the room when set off by some ancient version of photocells. But hey, the monks have a lot of time on their hands so I guess anything is possible. I am not the one to second guess 18th century roman monks and what they can or cannot invent.
The story goes on a bit more but does not make more sense. And I have probably forgotten some things. Either way, it doesn't really matter.
Uwe Boll also throws in a sex scene for good measure, between Rayne and a person she is seen to speak with 2 times prior to it (still not as random as the AitD sex scene between Slater and Reid though).
####_Final Thoughts_####
In short, this is a horrible movie. It is amateur at best, and while it isn't fatally boring, I struggled to maintain interest. It is the best movie Uwe Boll has made, and to be honest it actually barely holds together, which is a great leap forward for Mr. Boll. But, this movie should only be watched by people who know they want to watch it, either just to see the latest Uwe Boll film (like them or hate them doesn't matter), or if you have a very high interest in vampires or any other part of the film that might stand out.
2/10
Alone in the Dark (2005)
All I can do is jump on the bandwagon
Well, what to say. I saw this movie after I read all the horrible things people have to say about it. Needless to say, I didn't expect much. However, I did make an honest effort to try and see this movie with an open mind. And I think I was successful. That didn't help the movie much, though.
It sucks, pure and simple. The actors try, they really do. Christian Slater tries, Steven Dorff tries, even Tara Reid makes an honest effort. It doesn't matter. They don't know what to do. It's like Uwe Boll (Director) said "OK, in this scene you run. Action". Then the actors are on their own, making up the scene as they go along, with clever lines like "this way, this way, this way" thrown in there for good measure. I doubt that is how they actually did it, but it sure feels like it when you watch it.
The sound-mixing is bad (music is usually way to loud, almost obscuring some lines of dialog at times), although the music itself is totally OK (albeit way to obvious at times, when instead of amplifying the feeling the director intends us to feel at a certain time, it is more of trying to tell us what we should feel). That however is not the case for the pop song thrown in over the lamest love-scene I have ever seen, between Slater and Reid. It hits you like a ton of bricks. Bam, there they are, in bed. What relation does Reid and Slater have before it? They mention something about Reid having a boyfriend, and she does get happy when she meets Slater the first time in the movie. But are they dating? Who knows? The script-writer? Or is Reid cheating on her boyfriend with Slater? Nah, she is supposed to be a "good character". OK, so they are dating. This is usually the kind of thinking you do in this movie (and I am still not sure about them dating or not).
I could go on and on, but the only thing I can say is I pity the 200-ish people who gave this a "10" rating. I respect their opinion, I just pity them. In my honest opinion, they couldn't see the difference between this movie and a train wreck. No, wait...
I must, however, advice everyone moderately interested (negatively or, god forbid, positively) to see this movie (preferably without spending money, you would feel robbed). Crap with this kind of budget doesn't (and SHOULDN'T) come around, often, or ever. It is incredible that people still hire Boll do direct movies, even after he has proved himself unable to deliver any sort of emotion through the screen, be it sympathy, sadness, or tension (the "car-chase" in this movie is an example of his inabilities, as is the shoot-out with Slater and Reid vs. Monsters, with rock music played to force a feeling of excitement on us, a feeling which wouldn't be there even if Slater and Reid dying in the movie would literally kill me in real life). But if people continue to go to his movies and give him money, this will continue. So stop giving Uwe Boll your hard-earned money. Please. For the love of god.