Reviews

"The Road Ahead", together with "De Poolreizigers" is truely one of the best pieces of television I have ever seen. It is a documentary about and made by two life-long friends who hitchhike the world (in "De Poolreizigers" they travel from the South to the North Pole) with each a minimum of money and a digital camera. These two lads are REAL friends and have had a bit of experience already what hitchhiking concerns, but nonetheless these travels are struggles from the moment they wake up (if they are lucky a bed, if they're not lucky... somewhere.....you don't want to be). BUT these guys sure have had an experience like WOA!!! I also like the fact that these dudes are NOT doing this for the money. Awesome road trip documentary. (I seriously laugh my *** off every time I see this series!)

Verheyen, the director of this much discussed thriller, is an avid fan of B-horror/thrillers films. If you're not down with that and you haven't seen for example Italian cults like the Argento films, I understand that this film is pretty strangely build up. Also in ALIAS nothing really exciting seems to happen at first sight. It's the last part of the film where Verheyen suddenly changes course and shows us some really sick characters and bloody situations and then you realize (or you should realize) that all the small situations the personalities have encountered led to a finale so in-your-face for a Dutch public. ALIAS has a strong Argento touch in the psychology and story telling (e.g. Terror at the Opera). I liked it.

This is a low budget espionage action-thriller about a fisher boat that gets involved with the smuggling of bombs by the Nazis. The movie feels as if it comes straight from the RKL assembly line, but has indeed a bit of of flair due to the tension and action that kept me glued to my seat. The story is a bit one-sided since there's not much more than the action and espionage intrigue. Little time has been made free for romance for example. So, a B-movie that is not too corny and with a bit of flair. * 1/2 out of ****.

THE DESTRUCTORS is like a comic book. And a really bad comic book at that too. It all looks like a spoof from a James Bond movie (all-American hero gets all the girls and must get his hands on a weapon of mass destruction), but it's not meant to be funny . The acting is dull and the point of the story got lost in trivial situations filmed by amateurs. Only the music is pretty good and doesn't seem on it's place in a movie like this. 60ties detective stories: it's not just boy's fun...

There was more potential in this thriller, but we're left behind with the results of bad acting, no creative twists or story layers and weak dialogues. The musical score does lift some scenes up though and the overall look from MILO has a certain flaw to it due to the independent character (a "US" independent character). I've seen worse, but it's not worth your time unless you're a real fan of teenage slashers and the likes.

2/10

NANA is a dramatic love story by Renoir, one of the few directors that understood all aspects of cinematography. For me, these early mutes are the reason why cinematography is also an art form. Much more then the money driven "products" that came out the last years (spending millions on 1 film, but not including a story?). NANA only strengthened that opinion. It's certainly not the best film from the thirties I've seen. I find some scenes too long for that, but it's still very good. The sets are inside the hotel and house are amazing, the plot is strong. The actor that played Muffat is the best I've seen from that generation of films. I'm not really a fan of films that have a dramatic love story as a starting-point, I find it quickly too slow, but that's just really un-PC from me. ;) 6.5/10

Woo is one of the biggest trend setters in the action genre, but after seeing WINDTALKERS I can only say he's far from the quality Mallick or Spielberg can deliver. WINDTALKERS wasn't that good. It wasn't about war. WINDTALKERS is a fairy tale wrapped up in a WW 2 jacket. It includes too much mellowness and predictable situations that only work in Woo's THE KILLER and HARD-BOILED. Also the Japanese enemy soldiers fall like flies (1 bullet for 7 enemies?) just as in the early Woo films. When American soldiers are hit it ... goes in slow-motion. Seems to me not much thought went into the characters and even some scenes seem to be cut and pasted together in a quick way. John Woo is one of those directors that shouldn't have gotten into Hollywood. I expected more from this and if you know what war movies came out before WINDTALKERS you will be slightly disappointed too.

5/10

..., once there was a stunt coordinator who did pretty well in his job. Stand-ins for some of Hollywood's finest and helping them with fight scenes. Then, one day, he becomes an insider and realizes that he has some good connections with the right people. If he handles it carefully, he can make his OWN MOVIE!! Why not? He has been on enough sets to know how it goes! Making a movie? Piece of cake, dude. So, what do you need? A story. Or no. No story. Van Damme is at an all time low, but he still has the name that can be placed "above the film title". And every action fan knows Universal Soldier, so there we go! Let's name this horrid waste of time Universal Soldier: the return! Can't believe I almost sat this one through! 1/10 (can't we go below zero?)

I have always been keen on watching Hong Kong movies, but all of them failed to meet my expectations...until now! BURNING PARADISE doesn't contain the flat humor most HK movies have, nor a second rate story line that has been dragged into the film. The story is not complex, but there are never scenes that are just there to fill some "intelligent" space (the only truely intelligent martial arts film I have seen is CROUCHING TIGER, but since Hollywood is involved it is no true HK movie for me). There are some incredible fight scenes in this movie, from the first one(which is one of the coolest I have ever seen, yet so short) to the last main scenes! But mind, there's also a lot of blood that flows (people cut in half, decapitated, etc). The production is pretty good and the special effects show that the fantasy of the writer can be fulfilled even though some shots must be pretty technical (notice: the sheet of paper that he throws and got pinned into a wall!). Yep, it's not Tsui Hark or John Woo that made my favorite Hong Kong film, it's Ringo Lam! And I'm sure as hell going to check out more from this director! Ace.

REIGN OF FIRE is an average to good apocalyptic drama with an original plot: twenty years after a dragon-attack (awakened after some million years of sleep when they made the dinosaurs extinct) survivors have trouble to hold their ground. Due to time and production limits the full potential of the story couldn't be reached. That doesn't mean that REIGN OF FIRE looks crappy. Not at all! The special effects are very nice and not overdone, but I've got the feeling this could have become a great epic adventure with a profound list of characters and storylines if they had 2 hours more. But time is money and director/producer Bowman did a fine job all in all.

I like the way REIGN OF FIRE has a certain realism and there are moments when the setting (moisty and foggy UK) gives the film an independent look. Everything isn't as shiny and polished as most Hollywood special FX apocalyptic crap. This film is serious and doesn't overdo the use of dragons and special effects to raise the action. Not every dragon attack is as impressive as the other, but the psychology between the main characters can save some moments. REIGN OF FIRE deserves a 6/10.

On a personal note, I think it's a pitty that Christian Bale plays the main role, because I have troubles watching that man play after I've seen the terrible movie that is American Psycho.

I don't want to spend too much words on this one. I've seen some films in my time (about 200-300 a year). From big box-office scores to the ultra no-budget genre, but never have I seen, nor will I see something as horrible as this. To call this "film" is degrading for the art. No arguments can save this: this is where bad taste ends. I'm not even going to cover storyline etc. If I had paid for this I would have been pretty p***ed-off!

CHAMPION is not as much about boxing as it is about the personal life of a boxer, the reality of the "dirty world of boxing" and the relationships that can bring a man down or make a man rise. Kirk Douglas plays (the not really outstanding) role of Midge, who turns from a trainhopping poor kid into a boxing champ. His succes changes his character and he turns plain cold for the people that are the most precious to him: his wife, handicapped brother, first coach and his mother. I liked the way how his character shifted from the one mood into the other and you can feel the boxer is really troubled. CHAMPION wasn't a real let down. In fact it was better than the average Hollywood product I expected, but it stays average (a humble 6/10). The boxing scenes are not that special and the tension that is going on between the relationships is a bit too mellow for me compared to the best boxing-drama I've seen, namely Robert Wise's SET-UP. But, besides this name dropping, CHAMPION can hold it's ground.

This movie has an interesting plot. A wealthy couple is taken hostage and taken through the jungle of Honduras by bandits and Corben, a man that tries to set the group to his hand with promises and lies if necessary. They don't only have to fight the dangers of a jungle, but there's also a strong film noir element going on with the characters. They are all different and have all different plans with their future, but have to put up with each other to survive the jungle. It's a bit like how the characters in Ford's Stagecoach are played out against/for each other. The movie feels somewhat dated since it's so obvious it is recorded in studios, but like most Tourneurs, it's fine for a late rainy night at home. APPOINTMENT IN HONDURAS couldn't get my attention throughout the whole movie though, but I'll keep the video tape still. 5/10

Video game makers are mostly influenced by classic stories to give their games shape. So, it's no wonder that RESIDENT EVIL has lots of hints to and ideas taken from for example Romero's DAY OF THE DEAD. I would even dare to mention that there wouldn't be a RESIDENT EVIL if Romero didn't make his zombie trilogy! But also new films are recognized in some scenes, like for example the scene with the lazer beams is totally taken from THE CUBE (which was pretty good by the way). RE has a bit more action over the whole line, but doesn't have the psychology that goes on in Romero films, neither does it create a tension or a feel with the characters. It also doesn't have the gore that zombie films supposed to have. The effects are smooth, yet there's not much blood spilled for a zombie flick. Best example from this is the first scene in the elevator: we don't see her head fall off. Through the whole movie you are waiting for something to come, they try to build up tension and you are left behind with nothing.

The plot (thank you Romero) tries to be high-tech, but it's obvious it's just dragged into the film for little reason, but to give us a falls feeling of intelligent action. RESIDENT EVIL was a total let down and was even worse then I expected. And then I'm not even talking about the killer bunny...

--- FOR GAMERS ONLY ---

Where the first FROM DUSK TILL DAWN tries to be a B-movie or at least is a bit of an ode to B's, the sequel is a true B-movie in all the aspects. It must've been a disappointment to most people that saw the first one, but after watching it for the third time it struck me how it reminds me of the cheesy but enjoyable atmosphere real pulp movies have. Scott Spiegel, the director, does weird things with his camera and though it's not technical, it's funny (just like Scott Spiegel himself, that has cameos in lots of action and horror pictures. Also here he plays a cameo as porn director). The acting isn't bad, but is so method that it's funny at moments and the characters are all stereotypical: tough guy bank robbers that, on their way to the next bank, encounter serious bloody problems since one of them got bitten by a vampire-bat. Once in the bank the police surrounds the building and the action can begin. Lots of action with blood, second rate special effects (I told you this was a "B"!) and a rarely seen immense body count at the end. True. It's totally not as good as the first FROM DUSK..., but what do you want? Tarantino and Rodriguez teamed up for that one!

If you love B-movies you will love TEXAS BLOOD MONEY.

Gary Cooper is looking for work somewhere in South America when he meets an old friend with a succesful oil-digging company. His wife, however, is an old love from Cooper and the tension can only lead to bad things. On top of it all, the country suffers from bandits who destroy and rob all material. The story has a negative undertone about the failure Americans have when trying to make it big outside their motherland just like The Treasure of the Sierra Madre with Bogart. The characters are well thought-out and all of them have a solid background. Gary Cooper's character has a past he'd rather forget and it made me think about his character in High Noon. Unfortunately the movie seems to be made in a rush, but due to the story, drama and character studies I give this a 7 out of 10! And for me that's rather a lot!

Emotions of enthusiasm break down in sensitive portraits of poor Sicilians who reveal their inner self in two minutes they have in front of a camera. Realism all the way and yet i had to think of the enthusiasm Kusturica had in Black Cat White Cat although none of the characters are that absurd. If you see European movies like this after all the American commercial rubbish you get a glimpse of what film can give us! Good acting and writing, beautiful locations, a lot of strong character studies and very, very impressive camera work. Absolutely not a waste of your time!

i embraced the opportunity to watch this early Pathé film with both arms wide open. The story of Christ is told here in 22 sequences. At that time this was an expensive project. There are maybe two basic camera moves through the whole movie and for that time this movie has SPECIAL EFFECTS! yes indeed, some of the things are "colored" (the star for example) but the people who did the effects did an incredible job if you ask me. We can't even imagine what it took to create FX at that time! If a movie from 1906 can hold someone's attention from 2000 than you can be sure this is a strong film! Of course, in every scene there are things that were meant to be serious, but now just seem hilarious (talking about over-acting!). Recommended for all real film addicts, since there were people sleeping in the audience...

This movie made me think of - the much better - King of the Hill where we see the direct environment of a rather poor kid. I don't know how they got Al Pacino for this very mediocre (almost bad) mellow movie about a kid who would do anything for a dime to go to the movies. The plot is about the relationship between the dying grandfather Pacino and the young kid during the depression. The last one was not convincing throughout the movie, but Pacino's acting was again outstanding. The make-up "tried" to make him look like an old grandpa, but it's his acting that makes him look like he was really suffering and could die every second of the movie. From the moment the movie starts i was waiting for the moment he dies and whispers his last words to his grandson. There are original parts in the story, but not enough. This is a movie for Pacino fans and younger kids. A last positive thing: no matter how mellow a movie is, if it contains a story, you can learn from it!

The fact that the story line and the characters couldn't be any worse is acceptable. Its the MUMMY RETURNS, you don't expect else. i don't understand people don't dare to admit that the special effects in this movie were simply bad. it was technical, no doubt, but can't get more artificial and fake as here (the scene with the Scorpion Monster is horrible!). That's what you get when the story is made in function of the FX and not the other way around, like it should be. The action pieces are all boring and are all done much better in other movies (Indiana Jones for example). From the point where a character is introduced you can already tell what's probably going to happen, if he/she will survive etc... What about Imhotep? In the first movie they told us he was master over the sands and later we could witness he created a sand storm. in this one he simply created a water storm/wall? what's that all about? When the heroes were so called trapped in the narrow paths with their ship, the only thing they had to do to escape was simply fly higher! If you're going to see this movie, make sure your friends pay for this rubbish. It's not only the worst movie of the year, it could easily be the worst movie of my life...and i have seen LOTS of them!!!

What does it actually mean when a Hitchcock movie is labelled as one of the lesser good ones from the masters' list? It's the story about a woman who suspects her fresh husband from being capable of murder. SUSPICION contains everything what makes a Hitchcock a Hitchcock and has suspense all over it. Like all his movies you should always pay attention to truly EVERYTHING what's happening: the minor characters, the symbolic hints to other movies or to later happenings in the same movie (in the beginning from the movie when he tries to kiss her, she turns her head away and closes her purse in between them both and the suspicion begins), the place where the furniture is placed (watch the huge portrait of the general) or the requisites (in fact Hitchcock really had ordered to build a little white bulb IN the suspicious glass of milk to pull the attention!). The acting is fairly ok and it's the first time i saw Grant play a character which i really couldn't stand from the first moment. Also the writing didn't cause this movie to be one of the lesser good. A lot of people are complaining about the end which seems to cause all the trouble. It seems a happy end, but i think Grant's character has misled you all like he did with Fontaine's character, aha!

Oh it's so cool to watch a Silent Classic once in while! Director Vidor is simply delightful and even makes a lengthy (at least for 1928) cameo as himself. The story is about having success in life and the way it changes you. Marion Davies plays a girl that leaves its friends in a little comedy studio to be part of a larger "drama" studio. She becomes a big star and the consequences are she really alienates from the real world. For a moment she even denies her (poor) past! The cameos are simply hilarious, certainly the scene where the main character (Marion Davies) sees...Marion Davies in the studios and concludes she doesn't seem that special... It's got to be one of the first movie-in-the-movies here and for real freaks it's awesome to see the cameras and material from way back then. A must-see if you ask me!!

I can imagine a lot of people see this movie as a total failure, but since i'm not fond on the Hollywood sci-fi movies from the last, let's say 5 to 10 years, i must admit this one got me glued to the screen! I got this movie on a bad quality copy, so i thought i'd never sit this one through.

However! At times Species 2 reminded me at the older sci-fi flicks from the fifties and sixties which i love so much. Mostly this was due to the flat characters and the so-so special effects and gives it its own touch. Species 2 is simply better then its original, for a mainstream movie there's so much gore that it's got to be one of the few around, the effects and action scenes are fairly good and original and there's of course...Natasha Henstridge!

the story is simple. as in a lot of classic SF-movies, the aliens are brought to earth via Mars. The alien nested itself in the body of a young astronaut whom, when back on earth, immediately starts to reproduce by having sex with as many women as he can. As stated in the movie by hero-on-duty Michael Madsen "They can f*** the human race to pieces.". Not only is there a male alien on the loose, there's also a cloned female from the first alien (see Species 1). When she has escaped you can expect the "grande finale" with the gory-sexual pieces as an extra.

This is one of the better SF's i've seen. Probably because the special effects are used in function of the (poor) story and not the other way around...