Reviews

9 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Dark Angel: The Ascent (1994 Video)
6/10
Interesting Concept - Good Storytelling - Poor Pacing - Numerous So-Bad-It's-Good moments
4 September 2021
Warning: Spoilers
I have had this movie on my shelf for years, and have never watched it until tonight. It's dubbed, so I've been blessed with overall lousy voice acting. The kind of acting where everyone talks like they're trying to be understood by very young children or senior citizens going deaf. Since it's dubbed, I won't allow it to influence my rating.

This movie has three gears:

1st Gear. You're watching a scene that hilariously misses the mark. It only takes one tiny thing to make a dramatic scene unintentionally hilarious.

2nd Gear. Slow scenes that make you wish the movie would just get on with it. Poor pacing throughout.

3rd Gear. Scenes that explore an interesting religious idea that really, really grips you.

The following paragraph contains a relatively minor spoiler (the spoiler is inconsequential to the overall plot, but it does remove some of the suspense surrounding the main character's arc.):

I love the idea that demons are actually pious religious fanatics that are spending eternity serving the God the best they can, hoping for forgiveness that will never come. I also love the idea that the one rebellious demon girl that breaks the law and runs away from Hell is the one that earns God's favor. She has a very hamfisted way of applying God's will, though. Without going into details, you can see Veronica's point of view but there are scenes where she comes close to going too far, and you kind of worry just how flexible her barometer is for applying her incredibly zealous and overly pious judgement. She's a religious zealot. We already know that's not a good thing.

Not only that, but the overall story's actually good, which can be hard to see when you have to deal with overwrought, and often banal dialogue, though the majority of that is from the demoness, which doesn't understand how humans talk as a point of her character, so a lot of it is somewhat forgiveable. One thing that this film succeeds at is making you very uncomfortable with the alien nature of this demoness when interacting with humans. That was very well done.

Visual effects are overall bad. On the plus side, they're all practical effects. Makeup and gore effects are really good, though there is one awkward gore scene. Costumes are hit and miss--the horns and ears are good, but the wings look a bit too much like they were from Jo-Ann's Fabrics. The angel's costume also looks like a cheap cream cheese commercial. At least they had the good sense not to give her wings, too, or that would have ruined what little believability the costume still had.

Ignoring the voice acting from the dub, the overall acting ranges from half-way decent to idiotically terrible. Veronica's voice actress actually does a half-way decent job, although I can't really say it's actually good.

I mostly enjoyed this movie. There's enough fun, silly, campy parts to make up for the parts that drag.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
There's a lot that makes this movie worthwhile.
15 August 2021
Warning: Spoilers
I really didn't want to see see this movie and I'm not sure why I decided to. I went into it expecting to be disappointed.

And I wasn't. I am glad I watched it. It makes a few story changes that kind of separate it from the manga and the 1995 movie, and anyone who knows them will be uneasy for about the first hour. I wasn't enthusiastic about them. When I saw the changes being made to the story, especially how Puppet Master had been changed into a prototype of the type of cyborg Major was, now named Kuze, I was concerned. They seemed to have made some significant changes to the Puppet Master character. Instead of being a sentient AI that evolved from the network, he was now a cyborg that created his own network. I was seeing the warnings of a Hollywood screw-up. Fortunately, that screw-up didn't happen. I don't feel like they were completely faithful to the story, but they were certainly faithful to the characters and the setting and I think they did a really good job on this movie.

Scarlett Johanssen's performance; I'm on the fence about this. For a solid half of the movie, her performance seems to be not great. I can understand the robotic movements, considering the character has a robotic body, but she's a cyborg. Surely she hasn't forgotten how emotions work? But there are things later in the movie that would plainly explain why her behavior was so bland and emotionless throughout this first half. In the second half, she completely comes to life, and there is plenty of context in the movie for this shift in behavior and attitude. It's just that I can definitely see people losing enthusiasm and checking out of the movie due to the dry, almost lifeless acting of ScarJo in the first half.

There is a bit of racial thing that you'll miss if you're not paying attention. That being the notion of a major corporation basically kidnapping Japanese people, experimenting on them, and inserting their brains into robot bodies with very caucasian appearances. It didn't bother me but it occurs to me that some people might misconstrue what the movie was trying to say with that and be justifiably upset, particularly given the context of when the movie was made. To me, it just made the main villain look like even more of a dick.

I won't talk about what happens at the end because I don't want to spoil it (and I do very much recommend this movie. I enjoyed it a lot more than I expected.), but I would like to warn people that it doesn't have that deep, thought-provoking conclusion that the 95 anime did. Although I liked the ending and liked the decision they made, it still doesn't sit well with me. It asks a very different question about identity that, being fair, is deep and thoughtful in its own right, but it doesn't leave us with that deeper question.

Instead, it seems that it answers that deeper question. This film, the anime, and the manga all inquire into the substance of a human. What makes us who we are? How do you define the human soul? At the end of this film, the Major clearly has the answer to these questions, whereas, in the anime and the manga, she's accepted that there is no real answer and that it's not a question to answer so much as an unknown possibility to explore. This movie doesn't try to be that deep, and thinking about it, it probably shouldn't. After all, the anime and manga already explore that question, and this film looks at it from a very different angle.

While it may not be the Ghost in the Shell you're looking for, I think it's a good movie, and I'm convinced it's, importantly, good sci-fi. I didn't expect to say that about a live-action anime remake. Particularly this one.
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Dune (2000)
7/10
So far this is the...most thorough film version of Dune
4 September 2019
Jon Harrison's version of Dune isn't exactly what you'd expect from a SciFi TV Miniseries...but it's a SciFi TV Miniseries. Much like British Masterpiece Theater, you'd swear they got actors out of college trying to fill a work quota. The acting is Shakespeare in the Park levels of bland with all the pageantry of a repertory theater. William Hurt doesn't help considering his acting has always been bland. He even looks bored in the Marvel movies. There clearly isn't a single frame of this filmed outside, and every single desert scene looks green-screened. The costume design literally makes this look like a college project. No effort is made to produce makeup effects. On the plus side, they used actual contact lenses instead of roto-scoping for the Melange infused eyes. It wasn't the best way to do it since the camera has trouble seeing it in bright light, but it's a far superior way to do it than the other version of Dune did. So, points for that decision! That is a SciFi/SyFy TV mini-series, which means we can forgive most this. It's not as bad as most SciFi/SyFy TV productions. I've seen worse acting worst productions, so let's get into why I rated this at 7 out of 10 instead of 3 (which the acting absolutely deserves).

First, let me get the good things about the acting out of the way. For all of my riding on how rehearsed and bland the acting sounds, they aren't actually bad, and we do get to see who the better actors are, like Julie Cox's Irulan, who was absolutely a stand out performance. Giancarlo Giannini was thoroughly convincing as the Padishaw-Emperor Shadam IV. In fact, I get the feeling that all of the scenes with Irulan's education and trying to solve the mystery of Muad'dib (which absolutely were not in any version of the book) were only added so that we could see more of Julie Cox's performance. It was a good choice. Giancarlo's Emperor gets a few extra scenes out of this, too, though not as many as Cox. These two are definitely a bright point in this production. Barbara Kordetova's Chani also stands out, but this might not be a good thing as she consistently outstages Alec Newman's Paul Atreides/Muad'dib. A lot of people will point to Ian McNiece's Baron Harkonnen, but I don't see it. While he's definitely chewing the scenery, if nothing else, I actually get the strongest rep theater, low-rent vibe from his performance. It doesn't help that he actually frequently breaks the fourth wall and talks directly to the audience repeatedly. I know that's the director's fault and that it's done for theatrical effect, but it does nothing to improve my view of the acting in this production. Miroslav Taborsky's Fenring was...an interesting performance. I don't know if it could be called good, but it definitely was memorable. He also appears in most of the extra scenes with Irulan, but I didn't find his performance particularly likable. He used a strange set of vocal ticks and hand motions for his performance that I suspect was intended to indicate that there is an inherent strangeness to the character (if you've read the books, you can probably see what he was trying to do), but I really don't think it worked. I think if he had a bit more time to perfect this performance it might have been something very special. Unfortunately, it just doesn't land.

Now, onto set design. I've already mentioned that this movie has had the greenscreened out of it, and not very well. Regardless, there is nothing you can say bad about the design. The cities, interiors, and designs: if any money went into this production, this is where it went. Every detail is attended to and real work went into the design. For once, a SciFi production doesn't look like the room's been mostly made out of cardboard. You can actually believe the buildings and the city (and this only gets better in Children of Dune). I feel like with a little more budget and time behind it, this production could have been great.

Script and story are fantastic. For all of this production's flaws, it's extremely immersive. True to the book? Absolutely, but it has a lot of material that isn't found in the book, and I think they could have actually replaced that material with greater depth from the book. It speaks to the quality of the extra material that I don't think they were wrong to do this. I loved every single Irulan scene, which is what the bulk of this additional story was. Don't forget that Jodorowsky's Dune would have been 14 hours. We don't actually need anything extra. Still, I'm glad for it. Julie Cox was a bright light in a sea of bland acting. The story delves far more deeply into the book than the Lynch version did, looking at the deeper nuances of Paul's transformation, and doing one very important thing that Lynch's version failed to do: blurring the moral line for the protagonist. Is Muad'dib the hero or the villain, or something inbetween? Can heroes and villains even really exist and is everyone something inbetween; not wholly good, but not wholly evil? That was the crux of the book, and this production jumps into that with both feet. Where this production fails in the technical aspect, it more than makes up for in story telling, and even a portion of the technical aspect is well done.

Overall, of the things that are SciFi/SyFy Channel production quality series and films, this definitely ranks in the top tier. Absolutely worth your time.
25 out of 29 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Dune (1984)
8/10
My rating is for the Special Edition, which absolutely everyone should see.
4 September 2019
I first watched Dune when I was 12 years old, back in 1992, at a time when the Special Edition didn't exist, and I fell in love with it. I had rented this movie, and had never owned it. I wouldn't see it again until 2001, and it would be a different version, the Special Edition, on the Disney Channel of all places. It took until 2010 for me to finally see the original 1984 version again and clearly see that it was a terrible, incoherent mess of a movie. Obviously, at this point, you should immediately be concluding that the Special Edition is far superior, and yeah, it is.

The original 1984 version was a pared down mess. What happened was simple. Dino de Laurentiis had a standard contract with his directors that no film could be longer than 90 minutes. David Lynch, the director, had a bit of a problem of his own. He'd only worked on indie productions previously, and there was no way that the story told in the book could be told in 90 minutes. He wanted three hours. Given that the 1984 version is 96 minutes long, it should be clear who won this disagreement. The visuals are stunning, the world is deeply immersive and the characters are compelling, but there is no linear sense to the story. Much of the context is destroyed by successive cuts in an effort to turn a three hour movie into a 90 minute movie. Many plot threads are never resolved and many story paths are presented with no explanation for how we got from point A to point B. The result is a movie that literally looks like a someone's-favorite-scenes-smash-cut that you might see on Youtube. The charm is there, to be certain. You can get the overall jist of the story and certain story threads are completely followed (they can't sanely destroy all of the film's context, after all! You wouldn't know what the hell you were looking at.), but all of the subtlety and nuance in the film is gone to the extent that you simply don't understand it unless you've read the books, and no movie should ever be made like that. Lynch's biggest complaint wasn't studio interference, but that he didn't feel he had the experience to make a real big-budget sci-fi movie, which, I mean, the effects aren't the greatest, but the visuals are stunning. I think he's really underrating what he accomplished with this movie, at least visually. It truly looks the world you imagine from the books, and that's not really something you can say about a lot of movies.

Several attempts have been made to improve the film, to the point that David Lynch disowned the movie, giving us one of the rare Alan Smithee films that's actually really freaking good. That version is Dune: Special Edition. Deleted scenes are reinserted and a few scenes are replaced. The Special Edition of Dune is the best version of any version, including the amazing Sci-Fi (No, it was not called Syfy at that point.) Channel TV mini-series. Yes, I know the mini-series follows the book a lot more closely (and lets be honest, they still take a lot of unfortunate liberties). I know that what we ended up with was farther from Lynch's original vision than the theatrical version had been, but he filmed these scenes, and put in the movie, this Special Edition tells the version of Dune that we always deserved. I think my only complaint with this is that the Irulan opening from the original version is eschewed for the story-teller opening that was originally rejected. I love seeing all the paintings that told the story, but the Irulan opening was such a dynamic visual and compelling narration device that it seems criminal to cut it, but they did, and it's not in what is clearly the superior version. I understand why the Special Edition went with the opening it chose, because it had more lore and world building, but I honestly don't think any of that helped the movie. I definitely would have preferred the opening Irulan narration, and that would have fit better with the lore, because the story in the first book, Dune, is ostensibly being told by Irulan (that's the lore of the book: you're reading her biography of Muad'dib.).

The original 1984, version, as I said earlier, introduces plot threads and then inexplicably abandons them in favor of run time. The Special Edition fixes this by restoring deleted scenes that tied everything up. It also adds deleted scenes that helps develop the aura of Muad'dib the prophet. In short, the theatrical version is a mess, and the Special Edition is nothing short of a masterpiece.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
I'm not seeing what is wrong with this movie...
13 June 2019
And I'm feeling kind of dumb reading some of the more articulate negative reviews. Yeah...I see these things in the movie but I don't see how they're hurting it, and when it's explained, I understand it, but I just don't see what everyone else is seeing. I enjoyed the movie and literally the only thing I didn't like was how underused Christopher Eccleston was, and he was criminally underused. I think people complaining that his character wasn't developed are spot on about that. Otherwise, this is in my top five for favorite Disney Marvel movies.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
How lucky is it that my first manga becomes the first really good Hollywood Anime adaption?
26 February 2019
Warning: Spoilers
This movie is nothing I expected and everything I hoped for. When I first saw promotional material for this many many years ago, I was unimpressed and a bit worried. Gunnm, or Battle Angel Alita was my first ever manga. Battle Angel Alita is the reason I read manga. I was hopeful that it was produced by James Cameron, but when I saw the set photos and read that it was being directed by Rob Rodriguez, and this was about four years ago, I was quite dismayed. I thought it was going to go the direction of every other Hollywood live adaption of an anime. Yes, it's based on the manga, but it's also blended very heavily with the 1994 OVA. The first antagonist that Alita faces in the manga is Makaku. In the OVA, the first antagonist she faces is Griska. In this film, her first antagonist is Grewishka (This is simply an alternate Americanized phonology of Griska.). Interestingly, Griska is indeed a character in the manga, but he's a rollerball player that Makaku murders and steals his body so that he can beat Alita. You see where that concept went in this movie. Chiren is entirely a creation of the OVA. There are also concepts which were entirely created by this movie: Alita finds the Berserker body, whereas in both the manga and OVA, it's Ido that finds it and this occurs prior to the beginning of the story; Hugo introduces Alita to Rollerball whereas the OVA never makes it to Alita playing rollerball, and in the manga, Alita isn't introduced to rollerball until later, as two examples of what this movie does that's new.

I was not a fan of the OVA, so I was a bit disappointed to learn that this movie drew heavily from it. Every bit of that vanished when I actually saw the movie. Now, I'm going to review this movie in a way I don't usually review things. I'm going to describe the opening scene and explain why it's so important. So, this should have a spoiler warning, but here's another. It's not a serious spoiler, since it's the beginning of the movie and there were a few spoilers above, but this is indeed a full on spoiler. The above spoilers simply mentioned key moments. This one full on describes a scene. You've been warned.

This scene occurs after the opening scene where Doctor Ido discovers Alita in the Scrap Pile. Alita wakes up, the camera focusing on her overlarge eyes. She sits up, seemingly excited just to be awake. She has new hands and she enthusiastically examines them. She stands up, performs a few acrobatics in front of the mirror, and then heads downstairs where she meets her savior for the first time. She doesn't know him, and she doesn't know if she's supposed to know him. He takes her to the kitchen where they sit down at the table Alita is introduced to the people and comes to understand her situation. Doctor Ido gives her an orange. She immediately bites down into it, and promptly regrets it now that she has a mouthful of orange rind. Doctor Ido is glad to see that her taste receptors are working right, and suggests she'd enjoy the orange better if she peeled it, takes it from her and proceeds to do so. When he gives it back, she tries it again, and it's so delicious! She asks Ido if he has a name for her. He says, "Alita." She loves it! She asks if she can keep it, at least until she finds out her real name. The scene jumps to Alita having a wrap or a burrito or some kind of tortilla sandwich at an outdoor table at a restaurant and a cute little homeless dog comes up to her. Without a second thought, she shares her meal the dog, jumping right down into the street to meet him. As this is happening, a sentinel, a giant battle tank of a robot is walking towards them. A passerby, a handsome young man named Hugo pulls Alita to safety, but the hungry dog braves the danger to finish the meal Alita has given him. Alita, seeing the danger, leaps under the feet of the sentinel to rescue the dog. She doesn't have difficulty. She doesn't stumble. She isn't clumsy. She's a full on ninja. She glides around the sentinel's feet as if they weren't even there. Inhumanly graceful. Alien. Frightening. When she comes out with the dog, safe and sound, she introduces herself to Hugo and thanks him.

In five minutes, you've just learned everything about Alita you need to know. With nothing but a naming, an orange, a dog, and a tortilla wrap, the story has told you everything there is to know about Alita. Take a moment. Think about every other character introduction you've seen in a movie. What is the next film you can think of that gave you a character introduction this perfect? I couldn't think of one off the top of my head. It took me a few minutes to remember that in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, Saavik gets a character introduction this good. There aren't many. This is a masterclass on character development. Film schools should be showing this scene and having their students analyze it. This scene needs to be in a school course.

The whole movie is like this. From start to finish, the movie effortlessly, and often without words, tells you exactly what's going on in Alita's mind at any given time. This movie is a masterpiece. It's been awhile since I've seen a really good movie with Cameron's name on it. Yes, it's a Rodriguez movie, but Cameron was one of the writers. This is just as much his film, and finally, after 25 years, Alita is a movie that can stand alongside the likes of Aliens, True Lies, and Terminator 2: Judgement Day. Alita is an 80s action movie if the 80s had hyper-realistic CGI effects. This is what you've been missing in movies for nearly 20 years. Why aren't people seeing this movie?
46 out of 89 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Wonder Woman (2017)
9/10
One of the best superhero movies ever.
6 October 2017
Warning: Spoilers
This review might have spoilers (of course, depending on what you consider a spoiler). Consider yourself warned.

One of the most common things I hear people say is that the only reason this movie is so popular is because it had a female lead and director, and since the only thing they can actually cite as being wrong with the movie is lacklustre special effects, it becomes clear what they really think. It's time to be real: Wonder Woman has been a radical feminist from the beginning. The William Marston creation was ultra-radical feminist, and that was only toned back after his death.

This movie, while certainly feminist movie, with clearly feminist moments, largely steers away from feminism. That's not to say that there aren't decidedly feminist moments. References to suffrage and suggestions of lesbianism abound in the first act, but while on balance, we see the juxtaposition of a female-dominated society with a male-dominated society, there is never a suggestion that either men or women are somehow superior to the other, though it's clearly acknowledged that men, in general, see themselves as such, and many of these tertiary characters are quite insufferable about. The male leads respect and honor their female counterparts. Luddendorf (one of the villains) respects and trusts Isabel Maru as an equal, and Steve Trevor, though some minor chauvinist behavior does show itself in the form of being unnecessarily protective, he does trust Diana to ultimately fulfill her purpose. Ares even sees an equal in Diana, someone he feels he can bargain with, and someone he believes is worth putting faith in.

And I just realized that I don't have enough space to say what I want to say.

So, I've already mentioned lacklustre effects. Its practical effects are great, but being entirely truthful, this movie is a bad CGI movie, but if taken on balance, I doubt that is what it will be remembered for. This movie has what most Hollywood movies these days don't; heart. You care about the characters, not just as protagonists, but as people. The performances are very human. Diana's reactions to the world around her are delightful; her reaction to ice cream, her joy at seeing a baby. What stands out most is Diana's inherent kindness and overall compassion. You believe she hurts seeing the suffering of other people. You believe her helplessness when she realizes that there are no solutions to the world's problems.

People cry about the CGI, say the third act was weak, and complain about too much slow-motion (of which there's barely two minutes). Yes, the CGI was bad. But no, the third act was not weak. Either they aren't really watching the movie, or they're trying to see something that isn't there. I'm inclined towards the later.
3 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Power Rangers (2017)
9/10
If Breakfast Club was a Superhero movie
26 March 2017
Warning: Spoilers
Many of the bad reviews that came out for this movie make some good points, but a few are obviously pretentious, and are badmouthing the movie based on film snobbery and have little to do with the substance film. The film itself does not match the verdict of these pretentious reviews, all of which fail miserably to address any points of the film. It's as if these people expect even the lowest children's to have the same artistry as a Ridley Scott or an Orson Welles piece, and it begs the question, if these people demand such a high quality from their films, then why are they watching kid targeted superhero movies? Power Rangers starts out weak, with relatively poor cinematography in a chase sequence and an overall uncomfortable introduction to three of our heroes. It takes them awhile to start to have chemistry, but 15 to 20 minutes after the opening logos, they're starting to play well together, and the film starts to be enjoyable. Once they discover the coins and begin to develop their powers, it quickly becomes obvious that this movie was made by fans of the show, and while this is certainly a cash grab, it's anything but soulless. It's genuinely funny for all of the right reasons (and some of the wrong reasons). It has a few moral messages that don't quite hit the mark, but it's obvious what they're trying to say. Elizabeth Banks has the camp turned up to overdrive. This movie isn't Shakespeare and she knows it. She is totally not taking this seriously, and honest to goodness, I love her to death for it. She completely owns Rita Repulsa. She does over-the-top beautifully.

The movie adds a bit of unnecessary angst. The Rangers aren't friends to start since they don't know each other, but for the most part, they play well together and most of their interaction is totally Breakfast Club, and they do it so well. Zordon has got the Rangers together for totally selfish reasons, and throughout the movie, he isn't the most likable character.

Alpha 5 is perfect in every aspect. He's totally the Alpha 5 you remember but he's nicely refined and his place in the movie makes him irreplaceable.

The film takes more time with the Zords. In the show, the Zords would immediately form Megazord upon being summoned. Here, it spends time showing us the individual Zords in action before showing us Megazord.

It's true: this movie doesn't superhero quite like it's flashier competitors. It's action set pieces, except for the last one, aren't as big. Surprisingly, it's actually a little less flash and takes more time with the characters on an interpersonal level. Somehow, at the same time, it absolutely succeeds in delivering everything you expect from a Power Rangers movie. From morphing, to battles with enemies made from clay (fans will know the Putty Patrolers only too well), to robot battles, and finally to the giant Kaiju battle at the end. Even the theme is well represented. The movie has a multitude of obvious weaknesses, but it hits all of the right notes and it's exactly what you want from Power Rangers.
7 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Stranger Things (2016–2025)
10/10
This show is everything I want in a sci-fi.
5 March 2017
Warning: Spoilers
**POSSIBLE SPOILER--VERY SUBTLE**

Take the Goonies, make one of their friends an X-Man, put them in E. T., and replace E. T.'s mysterious government organization with the Syndicate from the X-Files, and then throw in liberal amounts of Easter Eggs from dozens of iconic 80s movies and comic books of the 20th century, and you start to get the idea of what Stranger Things is like. Rarely does a sci-fi show or movie hit all of the essential points for a perfect formula. This show manages it brilliantly, and like any good sci-fi, convinces you that this could actually happen, in spite of the fact that the premise is absurd. It does a brilliant job of keeping the focus on our core characters, and telling the story through their limited perspective. Further, the story never misses an opportunity to gradually develop it's characters with exquisite care. Whether we're seeing Joyce's manic desperation escalating, or Nancy's obsession grow, or Michael's infatuation progress we're never rushed and the show takes great care to make sure every character makes sense, and every scene leaves a lasting impression. A great show for binge watching, I absolutely recommend.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed