Reviews

Don't believe the very negative user reviews you'll read. Trust the critics on this one.

While you can find fault with a couple of things here and there, this is a gripping, suspenseful, bloody action movie.

It's well shot, it has strong characters in the brother-sister duo(the dog is also pretty much a lead), a gorgeous setting, and a new, interesting take on the Predator(a precursor to the modern ones, this one is a bit more primal).

I saw The Predator(2018) in a theater. It was mediocre. Wish I could have seen this one on the big screen instead.

I had to bring up Crank because the similarities are definitely intentional: this is an R rated, single syllable titled, hyper violent, potty mouthed action movie with an English lead. Though it would have served it better to really go for the extremes the same way Crank did.

It's entertaining enough, with a script that had some fun ideas and turns, but most of the good stuff was underdeveloped. Probably would have fared better with a better director. Still, the cast is good(always fun to see Stanley Tucci) and the action is decent.

For the less than 90 minute runtime, this is a pretty enjoyable waste of time.

In summary, humanity chooses 13 champions from all of history to battle 13 gods from all the pantheons(though mostly Greek and Norse gods, which is a slight disappointment) so that they don't get exterminated, in an arena filled with all the gods and all the historical figure cameos you can think of.

Important note: if you're getting excited about watching the fights, stop right there! This is much more about the setting, the characters (a lot of backstory flashbacks) and the spectator discussion/reaction, than about the fights themselves.

This is a middle of the road anime, featuring every type of anime cliche, quick and weirdness you can think of(horny grandpa Zeus, ultra-busty Aphrodite, surprising table turns during fights, forced sentimentality, 10 minute fights stretched to 2-3 episodes, on screen character titles, etc), as well as looking like it was born out of a mix and match process from other titles(anime or not).

You get the mythical characters from the Fate series, the arena fighting of many, many series (let's mention Dragon Ball), but given we're talking humans vs. Gods with high stakes, this feels more like Mortal Kombat, I even swear one flashback sequence of an episode was an homage of sorts to Attack on Titan(the imagery is too close to it to be a coincidence), and so on.

The animation is so-so, the story is blah, but there are some nice themes/ideas explored here(one example being the pairing, for a fight, of a god that thinks he's born perfect, with a human that has spent his life and afterlife trying to get better at something), but nothing gets to be expanded, it's all just on the surface.

At times, I felt they specifically tried to do a parody, but a lot of times that feeling gets undercut by other elements. If they had leaned into that aspect more, it would have been a better overall experience. As it stands, this is not a complete waste of time, but if you want something that will thrill you, there are many other, better titles to choose from.

Is the script a ridiculous, illogical mess, with unbearable dialog and half the attempted humor falling flat? Yes. But if you can ignore that, the movie is definitely entertaining.

Watch it for the action, the cast that clicks, despite the bad dialog, and for the apocalyptic Vegas, which is cool. Snyder can direct action, and has some decent visuals here, despite his overindulgence with head explosions.

Don't watch it if you can't turn off your brain, or if you expect an actual zombie movie(go see Snyder's first zombie movie for that).

At 1.5 hours this manages to move fast, provide thrills, add depth and not have me look at my watch.

It's action-comedy Groundhog Day(as opposed to SciFi action Groundhog Day which starred Tom Cruise). What this one brings to the table is a mix of tongue-in-cheek video game references (just like the title), is lead by a solid cast - as much as I like the movie, Naomi Watts is slumming it - a director who knows fast paced action (Joe Carnahan) and just enough self awareness. As it's not in theaters, open a beer, put your bottom on the couch, and enjoy a fun ride that has just enough "today feels like yesterday" humor to find relatable if you're stuck at home in the pandemic.

PS: This should have been a sleeper hit at the box office, had the Covid-19 situation not happened. I'm kind of sorry for Frank Grillo not getting his big hit as a lead, since he's been a reliable B-movie action star or A-movie second fiddle for a while now.

I am a bit sad to see one of my most anticipated adaptations end up being just mediocre. This is not bad, by any means, but if I was not such a fan of the comic book, I would skip it(and would likely rate it lower).

This was supposed to be ominous, but with a glimpse of excitement. Key House exploration and the discovery of the keys should have left me with a sense of wonder. Instead, it all felt so...mundane.

Maybe I was spoiled by the HBO adaptation of Joe Hill's father. For better or worse, the second season of Castle Rock had amazing talent behind the camera. The direction here is pedestrian. I didn't feel curious about the house, I didn't feel any exhilaration when the first keys were revealed. Nor did I feel any apprehension around some important scenes around a certain well; the quick cuts there were uninspired, to say the least.

A shame since the casting is decent - the actors look the part and act as well as they are allowed to by the script. Though, as much as I like Connor Jessup, his younger Fallen Skies self would have been better - aren't we all tired of 25 year olds playing high school?

Long story short - if you're looking for some mystery/fantasy, and have nothing better to watch, this might scratch an itch, but not much else.

"This is not like the comics!" "This is not like the movie!" Are two complaints about this show you will likely hear a lot. Neither are relevant.

This is a continuation in the spirit of the comics. And it's precisely why it's worth your time. Unlike the soulless page for page movie adaptation - all style, no substance - this show knows its roots, understands its roots and honors them, but without feeling like just a copy, another attempt to do something unachievable on a screen. It knows things change with the medium.

The showrunners know the source material, they understand it, and have crafted a believable continuation that borrows from the comics but is not the comics. This is inspired and influenced by Watchmen, but steeped in the real past, as well as the real present. It's a brilliant "What if?", to frame in something familiar to comic book lovers.

It's a confident show that does well in balancing flash and substance. Race, bigotry and brutality are a big part of the substance (and this is likely to expand). There is action, there is humor, even if mostly dark, and, especially important, there is Jeremy Irons!

When the world looks up and shouts "Who watches the Watchmen?", we should look down and whisper "We do."

Andy Tennant's movies have been hit and miss. He directed Anna and the King and Hitch, but also Fool's Gold and this. He should have a better hand at choosing his scripts by now cause this one is a mess.

It's a hybrid of romantic comedy and action movie. It fails in both categories. The characters are one dimensional and under developed. If it weren't for Butler's natural charm I would've ended up hating his character, a drunken gambler who got thrown out of the police force. The action is cliché for the small amount of time it graces us with its presence, and most of the humor falls flat, maybe because you've already seen/heard the jokes before, from other, better movies.

For all their likability, both Gerard Butler and Jennifer Aniston seem to be on auto pilot. Gerard is his own charming persona and Aniston is, well, Rachel from Friends, though they exhibit some chemistry. Neither will benefit from starring in this movie. Side note: Christine Baranski is wasted in a role far beneath her talent.

That's not to say this is a bad movie. It has some fun moments, though familiar, and it will not seem a total waste of time. On the other hand it isn't a particularly good movie and you will forget about it as soon as it is over.

Considering he's done The Animal and Deuce Bigalow 1 and 2, I wasn't expecting much from Schneider's Big Stan, especially since this is his directorial debut. I did not know much going into the theatre, except what I saw in the trailer.

Much to my surprise this turned out to be an OK waste of time, but nothing more. It's just another prison comedy, with a small twist. The incarcerated main character has 6 months to prepare for "doin' time".

It's nice to see Carradine pop up here and there parodying his other kung fu related works, and this time sending an anti-smoking message while consuming a life time supply of cigarettes. All through the movie I kept trying to remember where do I know the actress that plays Rob's wife from. Then it hit me. None other than Jennifer Morrison of House M.D.. She looked hot in this movie, but I feel she should make better choices in the future.

All in all a decent comedy, a better than expected, but shaky, direction from Schneider. This should be perfect for a weekend afternoon once it comes out on DVD.

Why is it that when it comes to Uwe, people find it easier to skip the actual analysis of a movie and start throwing adjective like "dumbest", "worst", "terrible" and "horrible" around? From my point of view, I find "In the Name of the King" to be his best movie to date(granted I haven't yet seen House of the Dead).Of course that isn't saying much, considering the caliber of everything else he's done.

I saw somebody complain about the CGI.Well it's better than in some far superior movies I've seen, and definitely above TV standards(I'll try and not think of Dungeons&Dragons:Wrath of the Dragon God).Who cares that the castle in the background is visibly CGI?It's not you would've believed it was a real castle anyway, and I doubt there are many fantasy movies that can actually boast with a realistic CGI medieval castle(not even LOTR managed to pull that off every time).

Sure, the plot is awful, maybe that's even an understatement, but it's Uwe, he surrounds himself with incompetence with a skill unsurpassed by anyone(I truly think, had he found a decent, capable crew of men assisting him with his movies, he would be past the 5 star mark here on IMDb).

Which brings us to the acting.Well, what can you expect from people miscast who've been handed a terrible script?Still, familiar faces sure do help with the viewing of such bad dialogue and intrigue.

Burt Reynolds, why did you do it?Was it worth the money?Was the sum THAT high? Jason Statham and Ray Liotta.Well, Statham is only suited for some roles, this isn't one of them.And Ray, well he fell off the wagon long time ago.This is just another movie in the company of Mr. Chelios that makes me forget why I once liked him(the other being Revolver).

I've never liked Claire Forlani, always seemed wooden to me.Seems miss Sobieski learned something from her.Why is that, I don't know, since Leelee showed some promise early on in her career.

Rhys-Davies and Perlman can be forgiven, they're not at their first mischief of the kind.

I kind of liked Will Sanderson(again) and Brian White in their roles though.

On the other hand, I liked this movie enough to give it a 5.Well to be honest it's more of a 5.5, but IMDb's rating system isn't my cup of coffee.Why did I rate this "insert insult here" movie a 5?Because, unlike the others, it's a little better directed, it's a fun popcorn movie, and looks a lot better.Probably the best looking Boll film to date.Plus it manages to be fantasy, despite the poorly written script.And some of the excesses of Boll's previous films are missing.Which is good(even though the misplaced music is still there, the overly long emotional wannabe scenes also).Thus proving my theory that Boll is learning with every new movie he makes(hopefully, even though he'd need hundreds of movies to breach the decent barrier).

I still don't understand why people are so keen on attacking the guy.Has he reached that kind of cult status?Because that is achieved by overly despised people as well as the overly appreciated.

I wonder why people keep seeing his movies, or at least keep an eye on what he's doing, when they consider him so despicable.If only you wouldn't pay attention to the man, he'd probably think he has nothing else to prove and retire.Then again, why should we care if he continues to do his movies?No one forces us to watch them.

Recently I've been going on a Boll spree, seeing whatever I can find.Not because I enjoy his films that much, but rather because I wanted to see if he really is THAT bad as I've heard.Haven't yet seen the, as I'm lead to believe, abysmal "House of the Dead".But I've seen Bloodrayne, and a certain review of Bloodrayne:Deliverance I read, made me want to see the second.

You see, the review, while stating that the film isn't that great, it also stated that it was better than the first.I find that statement flawed.While the second sees some improvement, it pretends to be something it's not:a Bloodrayne movie.The first one revolved around her, and though the plot was terrible, you could still see some potential underneath.The second, is just an excuse for Boll to do a "vampire-western".

Let's start off by saying the idea isn't bad, and given the proper director it would've been more than watchable.And in some cases, Boll displays some sort of talent for angles and shooting a scene.Then again, many of these cases are "borrowed" from the western lore.I would've expected some stylizing, given the subject of the film, but I'm pretty sure the up-coming "3:10 to Yuma" is more stylized than this, while mostly sticking to classical western(I should be ashamed for bringing Mangold's film into this comment).No, instead Boll gives us a shaky camera(not that upsetting, but would've been good in a lot of close-ups), bad editing, and less than usual make-up for a vampire-flick.

Vampires now just have fangs, no more face deformity when in a rage.Not that much blood either(which could be a good thing, the first one was terrible at gore-delivery).All in a day's work for keeping the budget down.

The actors in this one do a slightly better job than the big names in the first one.Not commenting on Malthe, since she didn't really have anything at all to work with(few of the others did).But all in all, some less-known, or even unknown actors do what they're paid for:act.

The script is awful, right down to the very core of it.We have the city-slicker, the gun-slinging con-pulling priest, the western cynic, the showdowns on the main street, the Gatling, and the well-dressed villain.Now, to make that villain Billy the Kid(and to somehow bring the whole vampire thing to Wyatt Earp also), a trigger challenged vampire, with a foreign accent, was just outrageous.

The direction:all I can say is Boll.He gets right what he did wrong with the first, but fails in other departments.You could say he's learning as he goes.But it's a really long learning process.There were a few scenes at the climax where the tension was supposed to be high, yet he dissipates it by stretching them to an unbearable length.

So, to conclude...the movie is awful, but still has some enjoyable scenes.If he had made a western with vampires, and not a Bloodrayne movie, he could've passed this as a "worth a check" DVD, but, as it stands it's just an awful example of movie-making.

One last word:I still consider there are worse directors out there than Boll, but I'm sure he will continue trying to prove me wrong with every new movie.Though I am expecting "Postal", he just might pull-off violent comedy, he did it involuntarily so far.

Instead, we're presented with a weird little comedy that fails to deliver.

The first 10 to 20 minutes I had a smile on my face.It really seemed Jared Hess was able to harness Jack Black's comedic talent(which he has plenty of), toning down the show-man into his own style of offbeat comedy.What started off hinting at a character driven movie(as in Napoleon Dynamite) soon began to rely too much on Black's clowning around, on him making silly faces and trying to get laughs with that ridiculous accent(which is fine by me, but a bit overused as a comedic tool).

The awkwardness of Napoleon Dynamite doesn't go along that well with the script(we don't have usual people in everyday situations anymore, we have unusual heroes in preposterous situations).And, except for little to none use of subtle humour, it's all about physical gags, farts and unusual characters, oh...and of course, Black can't help himself, and has to sing, a couple of times(moments that are pretty close to the highlights of this movie).

All in all, another reason for me to conclude Black's talent is best kept for supporting roles(i.e.Orange County), since he's rarely been able to produce a great movie as a lead.I know some might think of School of Rock, but that also had a good director, good script and good music, not to mention a Jack Black learning restraint as far as a role goes.