Reviews

A man, Paul Maguire (Nocolas Cage), has quit the business of... crime. However, one day his past catches up to him and his daughter is kidnapped. Now, in order to get her back, he must get the old gang back together and find the people responsible.

Yes, there is more to the movie than this, but if you are planning on watching the movie, I won't spoil your fun. However, thats not to say that this is a big and interesting plot, far from it.

Normally, I love movies with a twist, but a twist is nothing if the cast, script and anything really... is bad. In this case, nothing works. Nicolas Cage (whom I know can act) is two dimensional and anything he does seems false and... without passion. While shooting this movie, he must have figured out that it was a mistake and simply... given up. It shows. It just goes to say, a good actor (and I am not saying that Nicolas Cage is a good actor, but he can act, just watch Adaptation) can't keep a movie going on his own, except if your name is Tom Hardy and the movie is Locke, or Robert Redford and the movie is called All Is Lost. Unfortunately, this movie is called Tokarev, the name of a gun, and that... just... says it all. Really.

I gave this movie two stars, and I'd like to tell you why. Peter Stomare has a small role, and he is always good, and... the ending that goes on beyond the credits... is actually a nice little touch. But everything else. Not worth the bother.

Last words... don't watch this movie. Unless you like action for the sake of action and cares nothing for acting, interesting characters and... plot.

Someone is trying to make easy money, but gets screwed. However, there is always a bigger fish in the pond looking to eat the smaller fish. In this movie, lowly criminals meets councillors, junkies, dead musicians, dirty accountants, nasty crime bosses and filthy rich russians. Sounds like another movie by Guy Ritchie, more or less, and it does indeed follow the same rhythm (and theme) as Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels.

The movie opens with the narrator, Archy, who breaks down the plot for us in tiny, easy-to-digest bits, and thats definitely my least favorite bit in the movie, but sadly, needed. This plot is a twisted labyrinth, that constantly shifts from one person to the next. There are no real heroes here, just fish eaten by sharks, hunted by humans, killed by... you get the point.

RocknRolla has a huge cast, and some big names too. In smaller roles, you'll see names such as Tom Hardy (Handsome Bob), Jeremy Piven (Roman), Thandie Newton (Stella) and Idris Elba (Mumbles), and in the bigger, you find names like Gerard Butler (One Two), Mark Strong (Archy) and Tom Wilkinson (Lenny Cole). Most of them delivers quirky and fun characters, and some of them even gives us a bit to think about, like Tom Hardy's role, Handsome Bob, who is coming to terms with being gay.

The movie is fast-paced to begin with, but slows down a bit later on. It has the obligatory violent Guy Ritchie scenes that reminds us of the early movies of Quentin Tarantino, but in the end, it is all a bit hollow. This is a movie about greed, about screwing over those with money, or even, those without.

Last words... looking for a bit of solid entertainment, a good plot (not too easy to get your head around, but not too hard to loose you either) and some nice solid actors (and actresses), this is definitely the movie you are looking for.

I remember seeing this movie in my youth, back when it was normal to make movies like this. Back then, the stars were named Stallone, Van Damme and Schwarzenegger, and no matter what they did, they couldn't go wrong. We all wanted to be like these. Today, luckily stars need acting skills and not just muscles and a bit of martial art skill. In fact, had this movie been made today, it might even have been a masterpiece to be compared to such post-apocalyptic movies as Children of Men and The Road.

Lets take a brief look at the story, because there is a story hidden here somewhere.

We are in The States, a world that has been destroyed completely by anarchy, genocide and starvation, a world where the plague has spread, keeping the population down to an absolute minimum. Somewhere, scientists have found a cure, though, a cure that everyone wants, for good or bad. A cyborg named Pearl is sent into the world to retrieve this cure, and at the beginning of the movie, we learn that she has found it and is taking it back to the doctors who created her. A cyborg, by the way, is a man (or woman) who have been so heavily implemented with cybernetics that they could no longer be recognized as being humans. Pearl is taken by Fender, a madman who also kicks off the movie as our narrator, explaining how he enjoys this new world. Gibs (played by Van Damme) briefly encounters the cyborg, but is really only interested in killing Fender.

Those two have a dark past, a past that Gibs (or Gibson) relives throughout the movie in long flashbacks. He was once charged to get a small family to safety outside the city, but Fender interfered and tried to kill them. Now he even has one of the children, a girl named Haley, among his pirates.

Gibson is followed by another girl, one named Nady. She is interested in the cure even though Gibs care little for this. They are unlikely travelling companions, but starts out on a big journey towards Atlanta, hoping to catch up with Fender and Pearl, to get revenge... and the cure. Along the way, they encounter many dangers, and finally catch up with the pirates.

Cyborg is a low budget movie that tries too hard. Just take a look at the first scene, in New York. Less is more, and if only the director would have remembered that. If only I had had the option to remove the music, then I might actually have enjoyed the movie a little, but no, there is music in nearly all scenes, with only a few exceptions. Music that wants us to feel certain things, and that wants us to be prepared for what is coming. If only we were talking about a beautiful score by Hans Zimmer, but alas, we are not. So why do I ask if this is a failure, or a masterpiece? Well, what if the director deliberately used poor actors, to tell us something of the human race. What if he wanted us to think that all humans in this future were somehow cyborgs, part man, part machine? Unfortunately, this is not so, the director wants us to feel something for Gibs, Nady, Haley and Pearl, and therefore he makes them all human, a humanity that their acting skills cannot handle. Alas, this is not a masterpiece in any way, but a big failure, a movie with a tolerable plot, but that fails to deliver it in a believable way.

My only star goes to the two beautiful paintings of New York and Atlanta that we see in the beginning and end of the movie. These are hauntingly beautiful, but unfortunately, the rest of the movie... is not.

OK, lets try to get the story straight, or at least... as straight as it can get. I say this because this story has a lot of ins and outs, but at the heart of it all... is a paperboy named Jack (Zac Efron). Jack has an older brother named Ward (Matthew McConaughey), another paperboy, but this one more of a journalist than an actual paperboy. Ward and his friend and fellow journalist, Yardley, has come down to the south to help an innocent man named Hillary van Wetter (John Cusack) and to find a story of corruption that might prove their worth as journalists. Hillary was convicted of killing a local sheriff, but he never really got the chance to defend himself. Hillary has also found a woman on the outside, a blond woman named Charlotte (Nicole Kidman), who has a strange obsession with him and is determined to help the paperboys get Hillary pardoned.

There is the story in a nutshell, but really... this is the story of Jack. A coming-of-age story of a young man who has never loved a woman, and who misses his mother terribly. Jack finds himself at the heart of the madness, and while the people around him drive the story in the beginning, he ends up growing into a man and takes charge of the situation.

The story starts a little messy for my liking and as we hear the maid tell the story, we have no idea what this is really about. But what really struck me about this movie was the characters. These characters feel incredibly real, and I say this even though I come from a land far from Miami. Jack is certainly an innocent boy, but has his flaws as well, and throughout the movie we learn about the flaws of Ward, Yardley and especially Charlotte. There are no real heroes here, not even Jack.

I was pleasantly surprised to see such talented actors take on these flawed characters, some of them very different from what they would normally play, and yes, I am looking at you two, Mr. Cusack and Mr. McConaughey.

This is without a doubt one of the best movies I've seen in a good while, and one that I will have to go back to at some point. The ending left me on the edge of the seat, and... I have to admit... a little shocked. But you know what, the ending was absolutely right...

A hero, Emmett Foley (Gary Oldman), returns from Korea, only to find that he can't function like he used to. Something is changed within him. One day he goes nuts and starts shooting all over the neighborhood. And while he has no intention of harming anyone but himself, he accidentally shoots a woman in the leg. The police arrives, but is completely incompetent and cannot hit him. He ends by taking his own life, or at least so he think, but he even fails at that.

He is placed at a mental institution called Chattahoochee, where life changes dramatically for him. This is not a place where people get better, far from it, in fact most people who leaves this place does so in a casket. Emmett, along with his friend Walker (Dennis Hopper) tries to fight the system from within, but it seems like an impossible fight. The "patients" have no rights and Emmett is constantly reminded of this, and yet he continues to fight.

The story was inspired by a true story, and the characters actually feel real (which is ultimately a big credit to the cast). Most of them are indeed insane, but some, like Walker has merely been placed at Chattahoochee because it will be impossible for them to leave that way. In the end, the only way for Walker to leave is by fleeing...

I had no idea what to expect when I saw this movie, except that it was a story about "heroes (that) happen in crazy places", but that isn't saying a lot. And honestly, when the movie ended, I didn't have the feeling that it glorified Emmett, it merely set him free and gave him some peace of mind.

The movie has a nice pace that isn't forced. It takes the time to show us the characters so that we understand that they are more than just crazy and criminals. Sure, Gary Oldman overacts at times, but he has to, and so he is forgiven.

Overall, a solid movie with an interesting story. It sort of reminded me of the Shawshank Redemption, only with crazy people. Nothing is prettied up here, everything feels real. Definitely worth a second look, just not anytime soon.

In 2027, humans have lost the ability to procreate. It has been 18 years since the last child came into the world and no one understands why. Earth faces extinction if a miracle doesn't arrive soon.

The world is in complete chaos. The rich have everything and the poor sit in cages waiting for some unknown fate. Our protagonist is a man called Theo (Clive Owen), who finds himself working for an anti- government organization called the Fishes. He is paid to transport a young woman (Kee) out of England, to something called the Human Project.

As it turns out, Kee (Clare-Hope Ashitey) is pregnant. Is the human race finally saved or will Kee be killed before reaching safety? Theo sets out on a journey to save Kee and possibly… the world.

Children of Men is what I would call an intelligent and philosophical science fiction movie. It doesn't waste time on the technology of the future (except perhaps in a couple of scenes) instead it focuses all its time on its story. In this movie, the future is bleak and there is little (if any) hope. Most have given up and give little thought on tomorrow. What is important is now… today. For them the world is about surviving. Kee is different. She represents hope and perhaps… a future. To emphasize this, at the end of the movie, the boat that comes to get her is called… Tomorrow. A little cheesy, but since it is the only cheesy part of this movie, I can easily accept it.

While it is tempting to compare the baby with Jesus, the film makes no such claim. In fact, when Theo asks who the father is, Kee makes a joke that she is a virgin. She is not a virgin and her child is no Jesus. The big question is, what will happen when the world learns that a baby has been born?

The setting is very believable. It is gray and dirty, a strange mix of plasma screens (ads and warnings), graffiti, filth and broken down buildings. The colors are certainly meant to enforce the bleakness of the world. We know that something has happened because old newspaper articles proclaim that a nuclear war had broken out, but other than that, it isn't a part of the story. Perhaps the cause of the childless world is radiation, perhaps it is just the way of nature. A curse on mankind, because animals certainly don't have that problem.

The movie is all its own and I find it hard (if not impossible) to find any other movie that has directly influenced it. Most science fiction stories are about characters surviving, but in Children of Men, it is not just a story about Theo and Kee, it is a story about all mankind.

(small personal note: I can't mention this movie without also mentioning Michael Caine. He is a very cool actor and his role in this movie (Jaspar), while small, is one of his absolute best. He is one of the few hopefully people of the world and makes sure that you will laugh at least once during this movie.)

The year is 2267 and the ecosystem of earth has been completely destroyed, forcing the human race to live in orbit. It is a harsh life for most humans, however, there is another planet called RHEA, but only the wealthy can go there. RHEA is the paradise that everyone strives to visit. Laura Portmann (Anna Katharina Schwabroh) is no different. She also wants to move to RHEA, to live with her sister, but in order to get the money, Laura needs to make one last journey into space.

She is hired as a doctor aboard the spaceship Kassandra, an old ship that is going on a long journey to the faraway Proxima system. The ship carries materials that will allow the human race to explore and perhaps colonize foreign planets, perhaps finding a new and better home. The journey takes four years to the space station and four years to get back. It is a lonely journey, where the crew members take turn watching the ship while the rest have entered some sort of cryosleep.

After 3 years, the shift is Laura's. It is lonely to be the only waking member of the crew and every day looks much the same; she eats, trains and watch the spaceship. She is confined to a small area and is not allowed to enter the big cargo area. One night she hears something in the corridors, even sees shadows of something moving. She follows the shadows and soon finds herself down by the cargo…

Cargo is slow and intimate. Too slow for some, without a doubt, but I kinda like this sort of pace. It is a stunning visual movie with a soundscape that keeps the viewer in suspense. From the very first glance at the orbit world (a strange pipe that constantly moves around and with buildings on the inside), we know that something is wrong with the world. People look like fugitives and this is in fact precisely what they are. Fugitives from Earth. Laura Portmann is one of them. She seems to be constantly watching the world around her, never truly interacting with it. She has a camera that she uses to record her thoughts, thoughts that are being sent to her sister on RHEA. However, being aboard Kassandra forces her to take part and perhaps even alter the world of the humans.

If I had to describe this movie using other movies as points of reference, I would say that in Cargo, Alien meets Matrix. The environments are dark and gloomy, containing flickering lights and cold steel. The visual side reminds me a lot about Alien and seems believable. The outside is a different matter, though. The spaceship is a little nondescript and does not really match the inside. We don't get a lot of images from the outside, and when we do, we are seeing the ship from behind as it moves further into space. I wont explain the Matrix reference, as you may not have seen the movie. If you have seen the movie, you might know where I am going with this.

Cargo is a classic science fiction movie. It explores themes as humanity, desolation, and isolation. (edit: removed space exploration as a theme, because honestly, there isn't much of this) The movie isn't focused on new technology, but does presents new views on old ideas (like cryosleep and the classic space yetpack). I especially liked the interior of the Cargo area. It is vast, unpredictable and very dangerous. In a way, this area becomes one of the characters in the movie.

Don't watch this movie with the expectation of seeing great acting. The only complex character here is Laura, and she isn't all that complex when you give it some thought. The rest are just along for the ride and a little archetypical (but in a bad way). Watch this movie if you like to explore space and love a good science fiction horror movie in the vein of Alien and Event Horizon. Cargo is not bloody, but it does try to keep the viewer on the edge of his seat. It succeeds fairly well at that, but the ending is a little muddy. When I say muddy, what I really want to say is; the ending is a little forced and there is too much going on, too many threads to connect.

Astronomers predict that a world (or rather a sun) will collide with Earth, destroying everything – effectively wiping out the human race. This world/sun is Bellus, but before that happens, another planet, Zyra, will pass close by earth. This near-collision will result in earthquakes and tsunamis.

Dave Randall (Richard Derr), a rogue and pilot, is paid to take the secret information of earth's doom to London, to scientists that are going to verify the terrible information. The information turns out to be correct and the scientists start to plan their escape from earth. They hope that it is possible to fly into space and land on Zyra, which will (hopefully) be suitable for humans.

Randall suddenly finds himself in the middle of this whole affair, in love with the daughter of one of the scientists. This may also be his ticket aboard the ship to Zyra. However, Randall may be a rogue, but he also has a conscience. When it is time to choose which 40 people will make the journey, Randall gives up his seat. He does not feel that he has earned the right, that there are other more worthy people to take the seat.

This might be so, but when the time comes to leave earth, Randall finds an unlikely ally that may help him out in the hour of need…

When Worlds Collide is an old movie. It certainly has a story that it wish to explore, but with today's knowledge, the thought of a planet (or maybe even two) crashing into earth seems… ludicrous. Sure, a comet, asteroid or even a meteor would have been fine, but two planets passing through earth's orbit within a month… I don't think so. Of course, I am not a scientist nor an astronomer.

I know this movie was made in a different time, but I can't help but wonder about the reactions of the people when they hear that earth is doomed. I would have thought that people would panic, but they don't, only in the very last second when Bellus is within a stone's throw. Sure, they might not believe in the information, but they must when the big red thing gets closer. To destroy earth is a pretty reckless thing, I don't think a little emotion is too much to ask.

Another thing that really annoyed me. The ending. I don't mind the people reaching Zyra, nor that the planet is suitable for humans. What really annoys me was the use of a painted landscape. This might not have looked fake back in 1951 (although I think it did, unless the movie was in black and white originally), but it does today and when the landscape looks distinctly like earth, I can't help but wonder if they couldn't have found a real location somewhere, like in Asia? I won't even comment on the strange climate zones on Zyra (heavy snow and then 50 ft. away… a beautiful green meadow).

Was there nothing that I liked in this movie? There certainly was. The character of Dave Randall, for one. He feels real and seems disturbed by the thought of dying in so young age. He acts cool, but also human when disaster strikes. I also liked the pace of the movie. Strangely enough, the movie does keep you entertained, maybe for the wrong reasons (the movie is quite funny), but still.

As far as references go, there is a scene where New York is flooded, which reminded me of The Day After Tomorrow (Roland Emmerich, 2004), but also of 2012 (Roland Emmerich, 2009), where the humans built an ark of their own, only this one isn't supposed to leave earth. Of course the last is a biblical reference.

Lastly, I just saw that they are working on a new When Worlds Collide movie which is supposed to hit the cinemas in 2012. I can only hope that it is better than the original.

A scientist disappears from a train, a man dies. Harry Palmer (Michael Caine) is one of many investigators on the case, looking for a man named Grantby. He follows a lead to a library where he gets the feeling that something big is at stake here. After a fight with one of Grantby's goons, he returns to his captain with the bad news that he has been unsuccessful. The captain is for obvious reasons, not pleased.

In an abandoned warehouse, Palmer finds a small piece of tape with the name IPCRESS on, but at this point in the movie, has no idea what it means, if anything. Later on, though, he learns that it is an abbreviation of "Induction of Psychoneuroses by Conditioned Reflex Under Stress". When a scientist suddenly appears, with a strange memory loss, all the dots are about to get connected.

The Ipcress File is an old movie, but not so old that you are bored by the plot, dialogue or even images. It starts out with a mysterious disappearance from a train and a murder. Who did this and for what reasons? Then we meet a young Michael Caine, this time playing an agent called Harry Palmer, who is taken from his job on a stakeout, to investigating the murder and disappearance. He is no James Bond, and thank you very much for that. In Harry Palmer we meet a real person with real routines, real emotions and who can speak like a real person without a single one-liner. For these very reasons, this is a very satisfying movie.

I quite liked this movie, and while the colors are a bit faded and the dialogue a bit stiff, it actually felt contemporary, and the plot itself is as relevant today as it was back in 1965. The drama is not big car chases or rivers of blood, it is the drama between people, people that feel real and with real relationships. Also, the Harry Palmer character is not without humor, especially in the scenes with the young Jean (Sue Lloyd) who has been asked by her superior to learn more about Palmer.

As far as agent movies go, this is one of the better that I have seen in a while. If you are thinking of seeing Skyfall… don't… go rent this movie instead. You'll be the better person for it.

Bond (Daniel Craig) is on another (important) mission somewhere in the big world, this time on the heels of someone who has stolen a hard drive with all the names of the British agents who work for MI6. On the mission, Mr. Bond is shot by one of his own (an agent named Eve, played by Naomie Harris) and presumed dead. However, Bond is not dead, and when he resurfaces, he jumps right into the game in the pursuit of an old agent called Silva (Javier Bardem), an old favorite of M (Judi Dench).

While Bond is out in the world, M discovers that someone, presumably Silva, has hacked their computers and threats to expose the true names of the British agents. However, it is also clear that the enemy has other plans, plans of terrorism. Bond is now in a race against time before more agents are revealed, or worse yet, before M is killed by their mysterious enemy. Fortunately, everything works out perfectly for 007, who finds the mysterious Silva with little effort.

OK, admittedly, this was a very short summary of the plot in Skyfall, but in all honesty, there isn't a big plot in this movie. I could have given some spoilers about the ending, and maybe added a bit about Mallory (Ralph fiennes), but really, this is an extremely simple plot. Not at all worthy of a big iconic character like James Bond.

It is classic 007, with everything thats part of such an adventure, like product placement (not a favorite of mine, in fact I get rather annoyed when its as obvious as the watch in the opening of the movie), car chases (in this case, more like a motorcycle chase across the roofs of some unknown city), beautiful women (which are exactly as shallow and pointless as you would expect), and lastly a total lack of emotions and realism.

I am not a big Bond fan, and haven't seen all of the movies in the series, so I am probably not the right person to review this movie. I do not understand what it is that draws people into the cinema time after time, to watch yet another Bond movie… when they can watch something original with a real plot and real characters. Perhaps these people like the shallow characters, who care little for the safety of the innocent people in the world, yes, I said it. Look carefully in the opening sequence, how the female agent cares little for the people on the bridge, as she shoots after the enemy. Later in that scene, she finds it really hard to shoot the enemy, because what if she hit Bond instead. I may be wrong in this assumption, but isn't MI6 here to protect the innocent people? Perhaps these people like the almost infinite number of one-liners that made my ears bleed at one point. Why are we treated this way? Do the people who makes these movies really think we are so stupid?

Before I actually say something nice about Skyfall, because I can do that, I just want to give a small piece of advice to future Bond villains, because who are we kidding, there will be more Bond movies in the future… my advice is this: Always remember to close the door behind you, whether its an actual door, or maybe a manhole (cover). If you don't do this, Bond will surely find you. But of course, perhaps you are dying to have him on your tail, in which case, you are doing it exactly right!

OK, something positive. Skyfall is a beautiful movie, in a very obvious (and superficial) way. The colors are just stunning, especially when we follow Bond swimming through the night of Shanghai, high above the streets. There is no denying the imagery and action of the movie, in every possible way, this is some of the best the world has to offer. I'd also like to give a shout out to Albert Finney, whose character (Kincade) raises the quality of the movie, and actually give it some human emotion.

The very last thing I want to say is this… why hire Sam Mendes for this movie? Why hire him when he is not allowed to use the powers that God have given him? Where are the human emotions, where are the dark humor, where are the personal stories that capture our hearts as much as our minds? If you want to watch a real Sam Mendes movie, I suggest the following American Beauty, Jarhead and even, Revolutionary Road.

Only watch this movie if you have nothing to do… at all… and if you are a hardcore fan of 007 and feel forced to watch every movie in the franchise. This movie reminds me why I only rarely watch big Hollywood blockbusters.

The movie begins. A mouse is trapped. It is trapped in a maze. A maze controlled by someone, to guide the mouse. The maze seem endless. Such is the beginning of the Kovak Box, but it is also the entire movie played out in a single opening sequence.

Is there a need then, to continue watching the movie? Yes, of course. The movie is anything but predictable. Even though you know you are entering a maze, you have no idea what it looks like, or what turns you must take a long the way, and make no mistake, you, the watcher, are as much trapped within this movie as David Norton, the writer.

I would like to tell a bit about the plot, but beware of the words, they must be vague.

The writer, David Norton (Timothy Hutton), is going to Mallorca, with his girlfriend Jane. He is attending a conference in his honor. He is a science fiction writer, but is currently looking for that next masterpiece that will make the world remember him forever. On the plane there, he deletes an idea that might have been something from a David Cronenberg film. And yes, I would have watched that movie as well, gladly. But this story is not the one that David is looking for. There is another couple on the plane, but the movie makes no attempt to hide the fact that we should only be interested in the woman. At this point, there is no connection between the two, but that is about to change.

On the island strange things start to happen. A Russian hit-man. The arrival of a mysterious DVD with a monkey that kills itself. Strange phone calls and music. Suicides. It is all connected, of course, but only revealed by the end.

This started with the feeling of a Cronenberg film (I wonder if its a coincidence that the main character was named David?), but turned into a Fincher film (another David...), and for a second reminded me a bit about The Game. When that is said, while Timothy Hutton does a nice job at playing the role of the writer, the characters surrounding him are not the likes of which Cronenberg, Fincher or even Lynch (a third David...) would have used.

I like the overall premise of the film, but by the end, too much is explained. The three Davids would never have explained this much, they would have challenged the watcher to find the answers for himself. This is the biggest problem of the movie. Was it worth watching? Yes, of course. Could it have been better? Yes, surely, but I would have no trouble going back and seeing it a second time.

OK, let me first start off by saying that I really love heist movies, my favorites being, of course, Heat and Inception. This, however, is and will never be any favorite of mine. But lets start by looking at the plot.

Movies start with a couple of cops on a small assignment, Jack and Eddie, an assignment that they fail (but which ends up having a greater impact on the movie than expected). Then we meet the Takers, which is basically another word that the movie uses for thieves. They have been planning a heist of the FedCal bank and now they execute it. Everything seem to go smoothly, but if you look at how they planned to escape the bank, you'll see that maybe they didn't really plan for everything and that maybe, they should consider themselves quite lucky. OK, so now we have a bunch of Takers and a couple of cops, now we just need a bad guy. And in enters Ghost, a Taker that the group used to work with, but who were caught on a job and went to prison. He has a new job for them, a big score. The bad thing is that they don't have a lot of time to plan the job, and really have to trust their old friend Ghost. They really should have studied their movies, to learn what Ghost meant when he mentioned the Italian Job, because if I know my movies right, the thieves are double-crossed in that one.

Alright, I wont explain everything, except to say that the movie tries to set up some characters that are supposed to feel real and which we are supposed to gain sympathy for. Like Cozier, whose sister is an alcoholic, or Jack (Matt Dillon) who tries to be a good father, but fails miserable.

Unfortunately this setup really doesn't work for me. The movie wants to have a certain pace and therefore never allows us to really get under the skin of the characters. The writers/director wants to make his own version of Heat, but ultimately fails. We don't really care that much about Jack or Cozier. One is just a failed father and driven cop and the other is just a taker. There is no future in either of them.

I've been looking for something good to say about the movie, but there really isn't much. The actors overacts, the dialogue is messy and the plot rushes ahead forgetting to build up a proper conflict that we can care about. I could maybe mention Idris Elba, who tries to act cool, but he is not worth seeing the movie for. I am only giving it a 2 star rating because there are much worse movies out there that deserves a one-star rating. Lets say that the extra star is for Idris Elba... its certainly not for Hayden Christensen who should have stopped at the top with Life as a House.

Alright, before I'll lend my personal opinion about this movie, let me first try and tell you a bit about the plot, and yes, I am trying very hard not to laugh while using the word "plot", but stick with me, there is sort of a story here, bad... really bad, but a story nonetheless.

Maxwell is the leader of a cult (the Cult of Fury I am guessing?). He does not like where the world is headed, kids (*looks through my hastily scribbled notes*) killing each other, and pornography everywhere (there was a third thing that he didn't like, but I didn't have time to write it down, and I AM NOT seeing the movie again to get it!). The state of the world is in a bad place, but luckily Maxwell has a plan to make all this right: blow up a cruise ship killing hundreds (if not thousands?) of innocent people. Now, you gotta admire a man like that, for standing up to his convictions... and yes, that was sarcasm, pure sarcasm. But honestly, that's not entirely true, you see, he is really doing it to impress his girlfriend (soon to be wife) Tracy, like he says, as a "wedding present". Unfortunately Tracy doesn't feel quite the same way about this present, and leaves him. Luckily for her, Maxwell is nearly blind and deaf and doesn't see her 30 ft. away escaping into a car.

2 years later, we are in Las Vegas. Tracy has managed to elude her old lover, but only because of sheer luck, you see, she has been hiding in Las Vegas as a showgirl with posters everywhere. You gotta admire that kind of courage, but perhaps her plan was to lure Maxwell to Las Vegas because (and I am sorry for revealing the end of the movie here) that city ultimately becomes his downfall. Sorry for that, let me try to get back on track. Maxwell has now found Tracy, but he has also found Roger and Kenny, two cops, one an egotistical clown and the other an alcoholic (who has a really cool kid, btw, with nerves of steel), who will, of course, foil his plans and save the city. Fast forward through an endless series of pointless explosions and we arrive at the Hoover dam where Maxwell finally dies, but not before bringing disaster to the movie, erh... city.

OK, many good reviews have already covered all the technical faults of the movie and the extremely bad acting, so I'll skip that. Let me instead try to sell the movie to you, because there is a few good reasons to actually see the movie... 1) go see "Disaster" if you like one-liners, because I am pretty sure that the writer was paid per pound of one-liners (I am guessing that the movie made him a millionaire). 2) go see the movie if you like really bad foley work, because this movie is just awesome in that regard. The sounds are just so, awesomely wonderfully ridiculous. and 3) if you liked the bad action movies of the 80's, because this must be a homage to those, just look at the haircuts, the way they talk and even how they are dressed. Of course, since the director borrowed scenes from actual 80's films, he had to make this a period piece.

Ultimately all I have to say is this, Well done to all the involved parties! You have succeeded in wasting my time and anyone else who have ever watched Disaster. I sincerely hope that you were at least paid well to sell your soul like this.