swedzin Reviews

Kill Command (2016)

Well... to be perfectly honest.

[6/10 · 15 January 2020]

I was searching for some new SF / action films and I discovered Kill Command after I saw the poster with the giant robotic machine on it. I wasn't swayed away that much, but I kind of liked the design. So, I decided - let's check this one out. And I was not disappointed.

The plot is pretty simple. It is set in the near future, the team of marines are assigned to go in training facility for two days to test the latest robots for practice. However, things go bad when they discover that machines started to develop and upgrade themselves. So, it is a pretty typical cliché story. Some people say that this film is reminiscent of "Terminator", "Predator" etc. Me, personally, I think it is more close to "Screamers", because the plot is almost the same. About machines that built and upgrade themselves. Through the movie, there isn't too many exciting scenes, it is a generic stuff of human soldier VS machines.

The movie is directed and written by Steven Gomez. Gomez has worked on visual effects on at least dozen films, so this is his debut as a writer/director. Which explains this film's very solid CGI. But, about that later. I think that Gomez directed and wrote this film fairly, but I think he has to learn more on how to develop characters more and to make them more deep, interesting and likeable. Which brings me to characters. I think they are the weak point of the film. The characters are pretty much generic. They are really not that likeable or relating. The team of marines is led by Cpt. Bukes, played by Thure Lindhardt. Thure seems like a competent actor, but flat in his performance. I think that his character was weak. He starts off as an off-beat guy who does not like machines or AI and he automatically has a dislike towards one of the temporary members of the team. And afterwards, because of the obvious circumstances and plot he decreases his dislike just to survive. OK, fair enough. So, the disliked, temporary team member is Mills. She is an advanced cyborg, or android. She is played by Vanessa Kirby, I think she done well playing a cyborg. And that's about it, there isn't much to her character. The other ones are nothing special, but I must say that Drifter (David Ajala) is pretty much likeable of the bunch... however as the movie progresses, he did not leave some certain impression. Which brings me back to Gomez, who I think still needs to mature in writing interesting characters.

So, let's discuss other things. Music score was nothing special, or memorable. Editing was decent. Action scenes were solid, but not that quite intense. Now, scenery was really good. At least 60 percent of film is occurring in the woods. I think that was because of the budget. However, I think that shots of the woods were well used. Now, CGI is good in most of scenes and I highly appreciate the usage of practical effects. Now, the best thing - production design. The costumes are OK, they look like today's marine uniform with some modifications, I think that the budget did not allow to create something more slicker. The same things goes for weapons, I think the weapons could have been a touch better. The interior and exterior design is just great and to mention the design of robots. It think it's amazing. With high detail and really cool looking parts. So, these robots are used for training in the film, but they managed to give robots this sophisticated looks. Non-threating in a way, but still nice looking.

So, overall this is one pretty interesting-looking B film. I highly recommend this film to people who enjoy watching something simple and enjoyable, with robots and soldiers. I am hoping that the actors and the director Gomez will have more offers and jobs to prove their talents, I would truly like to see their further progress. And to tell you the truth, I enjoyed this film more than some certain BIGGER SF films which came out during 2016-2018. Enjoy this pleasurable little SF film.

Jeepers Creepers III (2017)

Let's make it duller.

[2/10 · 15 January 2020]

So, Victor Salva returned after a pretty long time, well he did a few more horror films before, but in a very long time, he didn't manage to make a worthy film. He mostly dedicated himself to horror films, and I don't know what his intent is, but his horror films are cheap and uninteresting. I know that it's not the subject here, maybe Salva can't get a decent budget, or access to some big studio because of his conviction of sexual molestation of a minor during 90s. OK, that's not the point here. So let's dive in.

Salva gives us a story, who knows where or, when, probably in the 80s. This time, more people are aware of the Creeper and they have a special police task force for hunting him. The other sub plot is a farm where an old woman and her granddaughter are having a hard time living financially, but the focal point is that the old woman (played by Meg Foster), has something on her farm that is of crucial importance. Salva stated in the interview that this will be the SCARIEST of all "Creepers" films... Well, he lied.

And, let's talk about it. The story is dull, script is generic, the movie has dumb, non-interesting and cliché characters. To mention that the film itself has some very, old cliché formulas. For example, the phone without contact bars and car that won't start. Really? If you have these elements in your horror film in 2017, that means that you are either stupid, or lazy. Now, the characters... Before I start to talk about actors, I would like to point out that there are characters in the film that basically burst out of nowhere, and try to act all important in their scenes. It's just obnoxious and doesn't serve us anything interesting, nor intriguing. First of all, Stan Shaw and Meg Foster. Two biggest names here, both were well known names during 70s and 80s. And they were casted because of their names. But, the problem is, they are pretty much forgotten. Only a keen moviegoer would recognize them. Others and new generations... Not that much. Still, they were the best actors in the film. Stan was interesting, but his character was one dimensional. Meg's character also was one dimensional and... She didn't age well. I bet they didn't use any make up on her. And I think that she was casted because of her old looks and her trademark blue, piercing eyes, just to look more weirder to the audience. But, all that was also wasted. Other actors didn't do much. They were dull meat sacks in a typical horror film. Johnathan Breck returns as Creeper. But, they also gave him a little to work with here. Breck was interesting in the first two films, but here, nothing new. He had much more personality before. The Creeper design is basically the same, this time with a red long sleeve shirt. Why? I think they wanted him to look like Freddy Krueger. Just look at him. At first glance, he does look like Freddy. That's a pathetic move. Anything to make your character appealing to audience. How stupid they think we are? Also, I think that they decided to give more screen time to the famous "Beatngu" truck. And here the truck, basically is rigged with unexplained, silly traps. So silly, in fact, that the creeper fell for one of them. Aw, Jesus...

On occasions, but only few times, the film keeps you invested. Just for a short time. And some action scenes are tolerable and fun to watch. Don't expect more than that. In conclusion, this is one, dull movie that offers nothing new and nothing exciting in the horror genre. The important thing is that the rabbit is free! The people who watched this film will understand this last remark.

Aliens vs. Predator (1999 Video Game)

Good idea, well designed... Alas...

[5/10 · 15 January 2020]

This is one of those rare occasions where you can play the AVP game, and still enjoy it. In my opinion, it was kinda enjoyable, but the bad things is... it sucked for me.

Now, let me explain. The idea to create a new AVP game (even in 1999) was a good thing. The design in the game is good. When it comes to the final look of marines, aliens and predator. Of course, it was taken from the films, so basically, the design from the movies was well adapted into the game. Seriously, the developers did a good job of putting exterior and interior design, which is inspired by the films. The graphics, for 1999, were swell. To mention that Half-Life was released a year earlier, or so, you can clearly see that the graphics are pretty much the same. The sound effects were great and the music score - I think that was the best. A really high-voltage in action sequences with Predator and Marine, and very creepy and atmospheric with Alien. But, that is why I only give it 5 stars.

Here's why it sucked. The controls. The controls are unbearable! When you, for example, run so fast (with all three campaigns), the entire situation of your character becomes uncontrollable. The enemies, sometimes jumps out so fast, so you collide with them first, before you open fire. On occasion, you can't even see who, or from where, is attacking you. Even when you are walking, you basically slip. Yep, the surface is pretty slippery. And when you are running... that's even more terrible. This is one reason to get your frustration high. The next is limited game saving. Why can't I save my game normally? I never found it normal to have limited saving slots. That makes the game intense, sure. But not in the gameplay or atmosphere, but rather in frustrating way that you have to count your saves. And all that while you are moving like a Road Runner on a slippery surface. The atmosphere was not that good. I mentioned that the design is good and well adapted, but when it comes to the switches and buttons, or maybe vent opening that you need to brake to proceed... there were moments when you just can't distinguish one from another. Especially in Alien missions. That was even more frustrating. The game has a lack of story, but I can understand it, in a way. And you can clearly see that the developers wanted to devout themselves to other stuff, but not in the story. It was an older game and maybe, they didn't have enough time, or resources to put a more complex story. The plot, or missions are given in marine (and Predator) missions from a computer screens where you can hear and see your superiors spewing commands and giving you guidance through level. Pretty solid idea, but in all three campaigns , those dudes on screen were such a bad actors, and with their weird accents, it just makes it more funnier.

At least I won't deny that game play is pretty cool with all three campaigns. You really feel like a Predator, or Alien... but not that much. Because sometimes melee attacks, or some of the weapons are bad, the targeting is bad with Predator, for example.

So, to conclude, the game has a lot frustrating moments, and it basically repels you. I remember the first time I tried to play it... I was instantly repelled. But, years later I decided to give it another shot and I beat it. But, I wasn't satisfied enough. So, if you are the fan of the games and movies, this is your thing. But I would rather recommend AVP 2 (2001) and AVP (2010).

The Hitman (1991)

Chuck Norris against mafia...

[6/10 · 15 January 2020]

Well, here's the film with Chuck Norris where he infiltrates the mafia (just to come closer to the guy who put him in coma for several years...). A usual cliché. I remember seeing this as a kid, it was one of the first films starring Norris that I saw. So, the story is next - Norris plays a cop named Cliff who was on the undercover mission with his partner, however his mission ended up almost fatally after someone betrayed him. After a couple of years in coma... well, what did you expect? It is easier to choke out an elephant than to kill Chuck. So, couple of years of coma, he wakes up an infiltrates himself in the Italian mafia in order to bring them down. The circumstances and further investigation brings him to the man who betrayed him.

Let's check the actors and characters: Norris... um, well... what to say? The man is clearly not an actor, which he also openly admits. So, he is usual himself. Calm, humble, quiet and down-to-earth tough guy. Sure, he brings out his lesser charm and charisma, which makes his performance tolerable, but for hardcore Norris fans, it is awesome. So, he was the usual self. His character of Cliff / Grogan is... well, kind of interesting. There is this slight development. He starts out as a jokester, but after the coma, he is a bit more serious. The character has some tiny depth when this kid named Tim enters his life. OK, this shows that he is not a cold, tough guy, but he also has some gentleness. Which is OK, I guess... Which brings me to this kid Tim Murphy (played by Salim Grant). Grant did OK and that's it. The chemistry between him and Norris is pretty OK. But, their relationship was based upon Chuck's personal life story. Of being small and weak, so let me teach you how to fight and stand up for yourself. We'll get to that part later. Michael Parks plays Ronny Delaney, Grogan's partner. Parks is without any shadow of doubt the best actor in the film. He really gives this well-balanced and discreet performance. Alberta Watson plays Christine, a love interest of Grogan. Watson was a great actress and she did OK, but her character didn't do much. She was used mostly to fill up certain scenes and that's it. The chemistry between her and Norris was... not that strong. So there are some interesting things about the characters and there are some good actors and performances, but of course since this is a Chuck Norris film, don't hope for more.

The director is Aaron Norris. He, he ... So, because of his younger brother, Chuck had a career back then. Aaron Norris is not a good director, but he used to make decently enjoyable action B flicks with Chuck... goddamn nepotism. Every film that Aaron had made, was basically like a birthday present for Chuck. That is what I meant when I mentioned the relationship between Tim and Grogan and how it was based upon Chuck's real life upbringing. That is the weakness of the director and writers (there were three writers for this film) and nobody could come up with something more different. But, I don't want to discuss it further, because Chuck is probably standing behind me. Things like cinematography, editing and production design are nothing special (pretty low budgeted), but compared to today's action / thriller films they are much more relaxing to watch. Action scenes were rather slow, but passable. The ending was satisfying. The supporting villains were ridiculous. In this film, besides Italian mafia, we also have Iranian drug dealers and mobsters. Because, they probably decided to use Russians for some other time. Only the music score by Joel Derouin was quite good. That good old bass guitar line and cool early 90s saxophone...

Overall, this is one enjoyable and adequate film. But of course, being a Chuck Norris film, as I mentioned... don't expect much.

Marked for Death (1990)

Steven Seagal vs Jamaican gangs. And it rocks!

[7/10 · 15 January 2020]

Filmed at the time when Seagal was a bankable star. Tall, skinny, charismatic and with a perfect face for camera. And this one is one of my favorite early Seagal films, which is still watchable today. Let's begin.

Seagal plays a temporary retired DEA agent who returns home just to find out that Jamaican drug gangs are swarming his hometown. So, as usual he gather his friends and armaments and proceed to give the villains some good Seagal justice. Because this is a Seagal film, you don't need to pay attention to anything that important. Just to be entertained is the main focus. Like in most of Hollywood action films. What can you say about Seagal here? Well, nothing actually. The guy can't act, he is the master of his own "acting style" called "Seagalism" and he can't do anything about it. He is basically himself here, playing the same hero, with the same appearance again. One of his friends is played by Keith David. Easily the coolest character in the film and one of the best actors in the film. Keith David is a great actor and they could have gave him more material to work with. Our leading villain is Screwface, played by Basil Wallace. I have to admit, Screwface is pretty much underrated character and performance by Wallace is great. Though I think that his Jamaican accent is little bit over the top. I am not an expert on accents, but that's just what I think. The other Seagal partner is Charles, played by Tom Wright. Wright is always cool and relaxed in his performances, therefore, he is pretty much enjoyable to watch here. We have Joanna Pacula as a police detective, who serves as a love interest for Seagal, however, there was nothing much between them, although their scenes suggested so. They, indeed had some chemistry. So, there is actually no further point in providing development for any of the characters. We have appearances of Elizabeth Gracen, Kevin Dunn, Peter Jason and Bette Ford, for example and early appearances of Danny Trejo and Danielle Harris. Also, musician Jimmy Cliff makes a cameo appearance. Him and Seagal are friends in real life. So, you can see the connection right there.

The movie overall, is not bad. It's a typical Seagal action film from the 90s, which is very enjoyable with high-voltage action scenes and, also with good fighting scenes. This is one of those films where Seagal is using Aikido very extensively, which is well choreographed. There is no special need to talk about the story, script, cinematography (though film has this dark toned camera), editing and other stuff... Just turn off your brain and enjoy this film. It's a classic today.

X-Men: Dark Phoenix (2019)

Feeble, unappealing and mundane...

[1/10 · 15 January 2020]

So, after many years, X-Men movies had this tendency to be... mixed. Some of them were good, while others were bad, terrible, inconsistent or just plain boring. This one goes into boring territory.

Directed by Simon Kinberg (whom Sophie Turner personally begged to direct), I did not watched most of his previous works, but as I remember, he is not a director, but a writer and did not have too much of directing experience before. He did wrote and produce some of X-Men films before. Some of them good, some of them bad. And his directing is really dull. However, I can appreciate that he apologized for the movie being bad among X-Men fans and general audience. But, also, I think that apology should come from somebody else... because, remember Kinberg was not alone in making of this. And I don't necessarily blame actors. I heavily criticize directors, writers and especially - producers who often want to protect their investments. Think about that for second, or two...

Now, let's check actors and character. The acting crew is once more led by James McAvoy in the role of Prof. Xavier. Good actor, good choice, but badly written, dim and undervalued. Just like most of the important characters here. And I am asking myself - why? I bet even McAvoy could not enjoy playing the character. Michael Fassbender returns as Magneto. Same as Xavier - dull and undervalued. He was throw in the film without any exciting build up and he was thrown out without any decent climax. Well, sure, this is about Phoenix. Speaking of her. Sophie Turner, in my opinion is a fairly OK actress and she can hold up. Though, she was chosen for this part, only thanks to her "Game of Thrones" fame. I think she was inexperienced for this role. And her character was also... boring. We got nothing new from her. Nothing challenging, nothing edgy or brave, nor wise. She didn't do much, she did not learn anything. She became powerful because of some unknown space force that affected her on the mission and that's it. That's how she became a dark phoenix. Now, I haven't read X-Men comics, so I am not familiar about her origins. Was dark phoenix there from her birth, or did she obtained the power from that unexplained space force? I am confused on that... Because according to the movie opening, on the road trip with her parents, she displayed similar powers, same as Phoenix. You can't have both, movie. Nicholas Hoult was OK as a young beast. But, don't you think that this guy should be already bigger? Jennifer Lawrence was a plank of wood, no charisma from her whatsoever. Cyclops? Quicksilver? Nightcrawler? Nothing special - just a fan service. I only liked Storm here, she was very interesting, but overshadowed by other things. And I think they represented her powers in a wrong way. She manipulates weather, not ice. Jessica Chastain plays a villain named "Vuk". What kind of name is that? It is a name that originates from old Slavic languages, and it means - Wolf. Is that supposed to have something mysterious? Or symbolic? Either way, Chastain is an OK actress, but here... no luck.

Other things as script, music score, editing, cinematography, visual effects... it just doesn't work. Nothing is redeemable, nor exciting. And one more thing. Forced politics in early scene, when Mystique (Lawrence) tells Xavier that women were saving men all the time before and the name should be changed to X-Women. OK, so... she brought that up for no apparent reason. She was complaining to Xavier, who did MORE for mutants, who sacrificed his whole life, blood and sweat to help mutants to live in this world of hate, prejudice, etc. Even I, who haven't read any of the X-Men comics know that. Xavier is a cool character, a wise, fatherly figure. But, as I said before, his character was ruined and hapless in every way. And they dared to do this to him. It's a horrendous disgrace. I think this scene was definitively an idea of marvel movie producer Victoria Alonso, who said in an interview that X-Men as a name is obsolete and they may change it into "X-People", or something. Now, English is not my native language, but the word "men" refers to mankind, humans. It is a plural of "man", and not referred to gender. I know that Alonzo did not work on this film, but she is one of the main players now in Marvel films... She is the same as Kathleen Kennedy is to "Star Wars". What is wrong with this world? I don't care about politics! Just give me a good story and interesting characters!

Anyway, I do not recommend this. I think you have something better to do...

Godzilla: King of the Monsters (2019)

Really average.

[5/10 · 15 January 2020]

You know, I was pretty much excited about this film. When I saw trailers, it really got me hyped up in good, reasonable amount. However, the excitement was falling and rising through the film. Sure, we'll get to that... First of all, I love giant monster films, I really do. I wouldn't call myself a hardcore fan, but a fan who simply enjoys films. I have seen both King Kong and Godzilla when I was a kid and I am talking about the old, original versions, which were basically the trademark of high entertainment and upgraded standards on films. I have seen others as well. But, let's focus now on this one. Godzilla - King of Monsters is an average film. It's not terrible in my opinion, but it's not that good, also.

The director/writer Michael Dougherty replaced Gareth Edwards (probably because of some obvious reasons) and as I heard, Dougherty is a Kaiju fan. Well, I kind of doubt it. He also seems like a decent writer, but in this film, his writing and directing were really bland - which goes to story and characters. The story is just bland. I think it was just a build up for the last film "Godzilla VS Kong". Even the build up towards monsters was kind of weak. I barely felt any excitement when monsters were first introduced in the film. Ghidorah, for example. It's build up was just flat. I mean, come on... Haven't these people, or Dougherty himself ever saw a good story about slowly, but surely building up to a bigger excitement. For example - Aliens (1986), or Jurassic Park (1993). These are films with a nice, reasonable build up. In the first act, they give us a small amount of aliens, or dinosaurs and in exciting and magical way. They did the same here, but there was no magic and no thrill. The story also has some ridiculous points, but I don't want to spoil it. The characters were also bland and they were played by some of the great actors and actresses. Vera Farmiga is a great actress, she tried her best to work something with her character, but her character was just bland at first, later, the most hated one and finally - unredeemable. Really? This character could have a decent story arc, but they decided to ruin it all by giving her a weak motivation based on silly environment fragility, how world population is ruining the planet. OK, I am not going to spoil more here. Yes, I know, it's a monster film, but if you want to put some human characters in it, then make them at least somewhat interesting, relating or likeable. But, we get none of that here. Kyle Chandler is a decent actor, but here, he was nothing special, even his character is one dimensional. Millie Bobby Brown? The teenager kid that was here to connect younger audiences with the film. How? By spewing out names of the monsters and giving exposition to the audiences? I am not sure about Brown's acting abilities, I haven't seen much of her work, but here she was bland, even in the scenes which requires a specific emotion, she could not achieve it. Or, maybe Dougherty doesn't know how to direct his actors. Ken Watanabe, for example (one of the greatest actors of this bunch), his character was interesting and he had an interesting arc, so to say. Ziyi Zhang? Great actress, but she was just there, also to spew out the names and lore of movie monsters. What a waste of a great actress. Maybe they just took her to show that good new diversity in Hollywood. Bradley Whitford? An annoying character, doing nothing but expelling the forced jokes which are not funny. Sally Hawkins? Another great actress, completely wasted here in the mess. Charles Dance? The already established veteran actor, who was typecast as a villain of a sort... but, unfortunately they didn't give him anything to work with. He was casted because of his "Game of Thrones" fame. So, in short - dull, uninteresting, annoying characters and utter waste of talent of actors.

But, let's focus now on the important stuff - the monsters. CGI is decent in this film, I'll give a point there... The design is really good. Sound effects are good and consistent to monsters. So, Godzilla... he looks awesome. It is basically the 2014 Legendary pictures design, but here he is a bit taller and heavier... I think it was a penis measuring because of the Shin Gojira which was released in 2016 and that one was taller than 2014 US version... so they decided to give him a little bit of "movie ego Viagra". The only thing I did not like is his roar. In some places they used a standard Toho Godzilla roar, while in some they used 2014 version roar. Why? Stick to the 2014 roar, it is consistent. Ghidorah looks pretty amazing, I am not gonna lie. The scale of this monster is just overwhelming. The scenes with it are good, they are some of the great visuals in the film. The only thing I did not like with Ghidorah is head design. It really looks like the head of Smaug the dragon... come on, man... There could have been something far more different in shape and looks. And when it comes to the design and scenes of Mothra and Rodan, I don't have complaints. I think that both of them were represented beautifully and faithfully. To be honest, personally I love Rodan's ("Radon" in Japanese version) appearance in the film. It has a nice build up and it is followed with great music score. So, his appearance did not disappoint. Now, when it comes to the fighting scenes... I think that is one of the biggest weaknesses of the film. In most of them, just when the monsters started their battle, camera cuts to human characters. Why?! It is just preposterous! Now, THAT was the moment where I highly doubted Dougherty's directing. Did he really saw any of the old Godzilla movies? When there is a fight - it is a fight between two monsters! Humans are rarely there. But, here they decided to shove them in. For no apparent reason. Why?! I don't care about them. Just give me a monster fight and I am a happy guy. And not just that... Some of the fights had a different weather conditions, like snow, or heavy rain... which made it difficult to follow the battle. Why ruining the visuals? Stop using snow or rain as a dramatic effect. It's not working anymore and it looks like a cliché. And the colors in the film... sometimes, most often there are two colors - blue and yellow. Is that a symbolism for something? Just give me decent colors, please. This is just pretentious. And there was a shaky cam in couple of scenes... Jesus...

The music score was OK, but I am wondering why using Godzilla's original theme composed by Ifukube Akira? Why didn't music composer Bear McCreary created and used his own theme? Wouldn't that be more appropriate? Yes, I understand that is the Godzilla theme, but it's not the US one, it's the Japanese one, from Toho studio. That was a clear fan service, but I think that was fan service with manipulation. Just to assure the fans that they are watching Godzilla. Yes, you are watching it - but if you are already adapting something that comes from the entirely different studio, country and culture, why not adapt it differently? Legendary already had a good, scary theme from 2014 version composed by Alexandre Desplat. Why not using that with some modifications? They could have used opening theme from 2014 and make it sound more heroic. You just cannot deny that original Godzilla theme has some kind of heroic rhythm and vibe to it. The score was OK, but I think, when it comes to the main theme, they were lazy. They used original for blinded fans... Come on, man! Don't be manipulated by that. Cinematography, editing, production design were decent in it's own way....

So, overall... I'd say that this film could have been a lot better. If only human characters were not that bland and wasted and if monster fights could have been better visually and not cutting to human characters. If you like it, that's fine with me. I just think that this was a missed opportunity. Or, maybe they just wanted to get that out of the way so that they can give more attention to Godzilla VS Kong? We'll see... If that fails... then... what's the point, Hollywood?

Godzilla: City on the Edge of Battle (2018)

Sinking into mediocrity and boredom.

[4/10 · 15 January 2020]

The second part of trilogy does not offer anything new or exciting. So, after the discovery of this gigantic, 300 meters tall Godzilla. TRUE, super Godzilla, if you will, the entire human team and their alien allies are retreated to make a new strategy, since this new Godzilla is more than just unstoppable. Actually, that's the original Godzilla, which grew to the immense size. And he is still a big threat.

So, basically, the story is still generic, human looking for a solution on how to defeat this Godzilla. They also discover a tribe of humans... who speaks Japanese well. And, they only serve as observers in this story. Nothing more. And, again characters babbling, talking and bickering for hours on what to do, what kind of alternatives they have. The two twin sisters of that tribe are, in my opinion a tad bit reminiscent of two twin fairies who can summon Mothra. Only, of course, minus wings. And of course, these two twins don't do much. They are all useless. So, the humans discover a nanotechnology which is more than 20,000 years old! Huh? The same technology was used in creating a metal armor and weapons of Mechagodzilla.

OK, so, I was lost at this moment and just decided to turn off my brain and watch the rest of the film. And it went in this boring, non-interesting way. I swear, I fell asleep dozens of times trying to finish this film. But, it was so repelling. I don't hate this film, I really don't. It's not the worst film, but it is so dull and boring and stretched with the battle at the end without any climax or excitement. It is supposed to be a Godzilla film! Give me an exciting climax at the end! But, again since this is a trilogy, we have to watch the last film. I still think that this might have work better if it was a TV show. I really, really don't recommend this film to anyone. We'll see what the final film has in store for us.

Godzilla: Planet of the Monsters (2017)

A missed opportunity.

[5/10 · 15 January 2020]

So, here we are - We have another Godzilla film on our hands. A trilogy, actually, which was originally planned to be anime series, but since the popularity of Shin Godzilla (2016), they decided to change it into an animated movie trilogy. So, did they succeed? Not exactly.

The movie is directed by Hiroyuki Seshita and Kobun Shizuno. The story is... and I am not going to lie, the premise is quite interesting and, through it, I could notice that this might have worked better if it was a TV show. So, the story is set in the future (a pretty far future as it seems according to the design). Godzilla and other large monsters destroyed the earth and all mankind. So, surviving people are somewhat "saved" by two alien species called Exif and Bilusaldo. Out of nowhere, simply thrown to our face. The story and these characters. So, these aliens promised humans to help them fighting Godzilla, but in return, they want to convert humans to their own religion. What? Aliens with religion? OK, now that sounds extremely far-fetched. And that is the moment, where I started to lose all my hopes for this film. So, after 20 years, humans return to earth, only to find out that Godzilla is still out there and they have to set a plan to destroy it. Typical. Also, besides this Godzilla, there is more. I am not going to reveal it, but, it was also not that exciting. Maybe for a moment. But, after revealing the main monster villain, the things went back to the generic and normal state.

So, the story and characters are pretty much generic and nothing special. The development of characters is weak and dull. The leading character is Haruo, who (for now) goes through a typical, cliché development, but not that much. He is angry and reckless for his anger, because Godzilla killed his family. OK, so... isn't that a little bit selfish? He is not the only one there who lost everything because of the large monsters. He keeps his anger through the film and he was chosen to be a leader. The character of Metphises was there to spew some typical, nonsense advises to Haruo, since Haruo is, probably the only one who is competent to do something. Metphises is an alien priest. Yep. Just what we needed. But, it is weird, because, in my opinion, he is acting like a typical Christian priest from earth. The other "important" character is Yuko. A love interest to Haruo. Just another bland character who is without any good reason to fall in love with Haruo. Maybe she is passionate for his hatred for monsters, or just his leader skills. The other characters... well nothing new and nothing special. The characters also blabber, discuss and talk until we all fall asleep.

Overall, it's a big nothing special film with nothing new, though it had some potential for something better. I even dare to say that 1998 Godzilla was far more interesting than this film. 1998 US version, for example, had characters, they were funny as hell, but at least they had some personality. The animation is... fake. I don't like this type of animation. It really looks emotionless and not that engaging and it was already used before. Godzilla's design also looks emotionless. He looks like a giant rock, only shaped to look like him. I just couldn't connect to this Godzilla, because he was just a moving mountain. And to remember how in the most of previous films, audiences could relate to Godzilla, because he had personality. Of course, in some cases, very childish personality. I was wondering... what if Hayao Miyzaki made an animated film about Godzilla? Wouldn't that be a sight? So, I don't particularly recommend this film to anyone. If you are interested - watch it.

The Predator (2018)

The Predator - Complaints and Grievances

[1/10 · 15 January 2020]

So, this was a big moment for Predator to return on the big screen once again. Good old Predator! It was a simple and focused film back in 1987. But... how is this new version holding? Let's find out. First of all, I want to say - NO! This film is definitively not holding good. We have waited for almost 8 years for Predator to return to big screen, to return big and unforgettable. Alas, that wasn't the case. And honestly, I will not hate this film. You know why? Because, it is NOT WORTHY of my anger and my emotions. Not even close! Let's start from the beginning.

So, first off the bat - Shane Black. Now, Shane Black is not my cup of tea, but I appreciate some works that he did. I think he is a decent director, who can give us a well-directed comedy film. But, I think he is an even better writer. In my opinion, "Lethal Weapon" is the best action, buddy-cop movie out there. So, automatically, I put all of my trust in Black. Yes, some people use an argument that he worked on the first "Predator" film. But, only as a supporting actor. That does not make him qualified for the job. He co-wrote this film together with Fred Dekker. So, is the script good, since it was written by a two experienced veterans? Is the directing good, since it was directed by a pretty much seasoned veteran? Sadly - no. I'll try to keep myself calm and not break the keyboard under my fingers... This movie is so far away from previous "Predator" films. I understand that the change is good in movies and it is needed for originality, to attract future generations, etc. But, if the change is good and original and if executed well, then, we have no problem, whatsoever. However, in the case of this film... It's a mess. This movie is a complete and utter mess. The idea, story, characters, script, etc. Everything looks senseless. It looks like a movie doesn't know what to do with itself. Everything happens so quick and randomly. There are many cringing, uninteresting, non-funny and confusingly unexplained moments. It looks more like a science fiction / action / comedy. Far away from the tone of the previous movies. It is not tense or exciting. I understand that Shane Black, as he said in the interview, he wanted to expand Predator universe. An interesting idea. But, what is the idea?

So, the plot is next: A special forces sniper made an encounter with the Predator, and therefore he is captured and thrown into the bus full of crazy soldiers. He also has a son who has autism, and, get this - the, so called, super Predator wants him badly, because of his autism and because, according to this film's idea, autism is the next step of evolution. OK, how so? This is just ridiculous and does not have anything to do with the Predator universe! I just cannot carefully explain this story in detail. There are many things in this film that are done, there are many things in this film, that are said... And, they are just unredeemable. Characters bickering about the title's character name and definition. WHY is that important!? This super Predator... terribly done, by the way. The CGI is really ugly. Super Predator is basically nothing but that terrible idea - make it bigger, make it badder! And it is just horrible. This super Predator is neither interesting, appealing, nor fun. He is just big. The super Predator also have hunting dogs. The less I say about them the better. This movie has a terrible plot, or no plot at all.

The characters: unlikeable, not charismatic, irritating, dull and pointless. Our leading hero is portrayed by Boyd Holbrook. He is a decent actor, but here, he was just boring and not appealing at all. This guy does not have a star power. Jacob Tremblay is a great kid actor, I have seen him in "The Room" and I think that he does not deserve this kind of treatment. Olivia Munn was... well, I saw wooden boards and steel pipes performing better than her. She can be OK, but here... there was just nothing. We have some veteran actors like Thomas Jane and Jake Busey. OK, Jane is also a good actor and I think he was the best actor in the movie, but his character was nothing but a waste. I only gave one star because him and Keegan Michael-Key have some decent chemistry together. They really fed off each other nicely. And that is the only thing worthy in this film. Trevante Rhodes plays a potentially interesting character, but not that much. He has some charm and he is trying to work something with it, but the film just does not allow him to do so. The less I say about other actors and performances the better. These are the characters that you don't care about and you want them dead.

So, CGI, editing, musical score... nothing good, new, or special there. So let's get back to Shane Black. I really don't know what was he thinking about when he wrote the script. I am curious what was in his head while directing? Did he really wanted to make a film that is actually one big joke? And why using Predator in all that mess? This is a real travesty example of a film character that is really beloved by many fans. I am a fan of Predator, not the hardcore fan, but still a moderate fan. My obsessive passion is movies. And Predator started out as a movie. It was a respected and interesting character through the years. The first one is the best, second one is not the best, but still a decent sequel. AVP movies are bad, but better than this crap. At least they have some consistency and solid pace. Predators (2010), I think was a decent film, and I think that film expanded Predator universe more than 2018 film. I feel quite weird and ashamed for watching this film. To be aware that this film is the part of the franchise now. This is just another example of Hollywood today. No ideas, nothing new, and when they give us something new - the idea is terrible. This film will not last long and you can be sure of it. It will not be timeless and I can't believe what I am going to say... I feel sorry for today's generations. For giving them something like this. This horrid piece of puke. I hope that this film will not get a sequel and I hope that somebody else will take over and restart and rethink the idea. The audiences and fans do not deserve this film.

Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom (2018)

Fast paced, dull, manipulative and exists only to grab your money.

[3/10 · 15 January 2020]

This has to be the most fast paced Jurassic Park film in which things escalated so quickly, so clumsily and embarrassingly. Before I start... I just want to point out something. I know that most of you are familiar with that fact, but I just cannot go on without saying that. Most of Hollywood films in the last 8 years, or so, were made just for one purpose - to take your money away. And, that is just it. Yes, I know, now you think, Hollywood has been doing so ever since it existed. True, but we had so many good Hollywood films in the past. Movies that WERE worth your money. So, movies today... they rarely have good characters and that good old feeling... The feeling of connection between the audiences and characters. You could enjoy a good, well executed story and other things. But today's films... they just don't have characters anymore, I dare to say, metaphorically... they don't have soul anymore. So, let's dive in in this dino-turd.

To mention that first Jurassic Park film was really something tremendous and magical in 1993, and I think that even the 1997 sequel was not that bad, until 2001 sequel came a long and slapped a shameful whack to the audiences all over the world and fans. And in 2015, we got Jurassic World - the beginning of new franchise (because Hollywood is now taking the sequels and not calling them sequels directly - rather "a new beginning in franchise". Speaking of no more ideas...). So, the 2015 film was not the best film around, but the ending was cool. But this film... this was something very ugly. It has a lot of terrible things in it. The movie essentially borrows from The Lost World - Jurassic Park (1997) - the idea is similar to "rescuing" dinosaurs and transport them to a better and safer place. However, the movie also introduces an evil people who are not for rescuing of dinosaurs. So, nothing new! Just the same as 2015 film, only double in appearance. The movie was directed by J.A. Bayona. Not the best director for JP films. It was written by Colin Trevorrow and Derek Connolly. Colin directed the first Jurassic World, but he didn't brought anything new with this one in the script, it was basically the same thing over and over. The characters were dull, not interesting and characters of Owen and Claire were not developed, nor evolved. We have some new characters... an irritating computer geek and a paleo -veterinarian. A what? Is that even real? Dude, you need a dinosaur to learn how to operate on them. Now, I know that you think "we should not take these movies seriously". Sure, I agree. But, in order to make a good film - you need to put some sense into it! From older actors, we have Ted Levine as a dinosaur hunter. Levine is a good actor, but this time, they wasted his talents. He is just a hunter who likes to collect dinosaur teeth. And that's just it. Another one is James Cromwell, who is John Hammond look alike. I am not going to spoil you anything, but it seems that we needed some old character to resemble Hammond. But, the problem is - Hammond was interesting character. Also, we have D.B. Wong as Henry Wu, the man who designed dinosaurs of Jurassic Park. In first film, he was likeable (no matter how shortly he was there), but in the JW, you can clearly see a change in the character. But, here, he was nothing but a ridiculous, villainous slime ball. And, finally, we have Jeff Goldblum, just to spew out his lines from trailer and that's it.

Now, let's talk about other things. The music score was tolerable, maybe. There was a lot of original score, but I think that John Williams should have been a part of this movie. Cinematography was decent in some shots, production design... nothing new. I thought that production design was better in the JW. CGI? Well, I didn't like it. It was uninspiring and in certain scenes - terrible. OK, I would say that volcano and lava CGI is OK enough. Practical effects were used minimally. Editing was OK, it was consistent and clean. The script and dialogue were freaking horrific. As I said... no connection. Not even between the characters, or characters and audiences.

So, what was the point of this film? I cannot really tell. There were a lot of terrible things. It is just a mess. As I mentioned, the pace is just ugly and everything is escalating so senselessly. Who is the target audience here? All of us, sad to say. Because, Hollywood needs money. So, they expect that their movie will work? Do they think that their movie will be timeless? I guess - not. Today's movies are just... lost. Everything is lost in this meaningless, pseudo stories and characters which don't serve nothing to the audience. For example, we have this little girl in the film and she is nothing but a little jerk who hides around in a large mansion. That is it. What else do we have about her? Nothing! Well, later it was revealed who is she. Most of people don't like child actors and characters in the film, but I could connect to the kids in the first and second film, but in this one... not even close. One more thing... I don't know why, but this film also give a few manipulative scenes. The manipulation of emotions. This was such a pathetic attempt for audience to feel sorry for some things. Why? Nobody cared for that. And how can I care, because I could not relate to most of things in the film. My friendly advice is to avoid this stuff and turn your head toward cinema from other countries... maybe you'll find something better there.

Darksiders II (2012 Video Game)

Best Darksiders game ever. Death is awesome!

[9/10 · 15 January 2020]

This was actually the first Darksiders game I have played. But, only for the reason because the leading hero - Death was voiced by my favorite actor, Michael Wincott. And, I guess, thanks to him I stepped into this great universe of Darksiders lore. The idea of the story was just amazing and plausible, for example, but we'll get to that later, let's talk plot first.

The game continues from the first one, the War is sentenced by the Charred Council, and his older (the eldest) brother, the Nephilim Death is set on personal mission to prove that War is innocent and to restore humanity.

The game offers you even better visuals and designs than the first one. The level design is far more beautiful, more bigger, but easy on the eyes. And the looks of the levels are very different, which makes you want to explore even more through that world. Death is basically stranded in this weird world, someone might say, a different dimensions, that expands from Forge Lands to Dead Lands. And even to Hellish World where Samael and Lilith are wardens. Weapons design is great. The character design is so good and refreshing. The Death design is brilliant. This lean, muscular figure with skull-shaped mask and long, dark hair, with blue, cold like body and this voice... Well, I think that Michael Wincott was more than a perfect choice to voice this Death. His deeply rasping voice fits so uniquely to the character. It is cold, scary and very awesome sounding. To mention that Wincott is a really great actor who just gave an amazing performance to his character, he wasn't only a voice... but a character. And Death is well developed and a cool character. He is dark, calculating, sarcastic, cynical, cold, distant, has this dark sense of humor, but he is immensely powerful and, basically invulnerable - a total badass! Very deadly, fast, agile and, with amazing abilities... But, he shows care for his brethren and he has a spark of humanity. Well, him being Death, which makes him one of the most powerful beings in this universe and according to the lore of our mythologies, different cultures and folklore, Death, the Grim Reaper, is inevitable and forever, so when that comes to mind, it fits in so satisfying manner. Other characters and voice actors were great, you instantly fell in love with leading Maker (voiced by James Cosmo), for example, you even like that slime ball merchant Vulgrim (voiced by Phil Lamarr). The other voice talents are JB Blanc, Claudia Christian, Phil Proctor and Steve Blum.

Game play is filled with high-voltage action, puzzles and other activities. You can level up, upgrade yourself, but you must advance and look for more tougher opponents so that you can level up faster. There are sets of weapons made for Death, also including armor and other power garments. When it comes to controls, you need to get use to them, but it's not that hard. I find the first game to be notorious for game puzzles, because they were tiresome and too long, this game offers you smaller puzzles, but I think that there are more of them here. But, they are not that hard and some of them are quite interesting. On occasions, they can be boring. Sound design is just amazing and soundtrack is awesome.

So, this is, in my opinion the best Darksiders game... for now. We'll see about the next two. This is a must play and I recommend it 100%.

Darksiders (2010 Video Game)

Enjoyable in visuals and story

[7/10 · 15 January 2020]

First of all, in my eyes, this was one powerful game that excelled in visuals especially. The second thing, this was a decent game play and high-voltage action. And we will talk about those things in a moment. So, let's talk about the plot. I think the story for the game is excellent. Pretty much original in every sense. And a really good idea to use characters from bible and other mythology and put them in this universe. You are War, one of the four horseman, who is send to earth to fight in the war where armies of hell and heaven are brewing and the humans are stuck in the middle. But, the War was betrayed and send back to, so called Charred Council, that thinks that he started the apocalypse too early. But, the War being a man of honor, he convinces the Charred Council to look for the real offender. So, the War goes on his quest. Which is filled with many dangers, betrayals and temptations. Now, let's talk about those stunning visuals. The level, character and weapons design are just marvelous. Everything has this majestic and magical shapes and lively, mystical colors. This is perhaps, the strongest point in the game. Sound design, graphics and soundtrack are good. Action is really solid and good. The War has some tough and great moves and to mention combinations. The voice acting is really good, we have such voice talents of Mark Hammil, Phil Lammar, Moon Bloodgood, Vernon Wells, Fred Tatasciore, Troy Baker, Keith Szarabajka and Liam O'Brien as War. The characters are interesting and fairly developed. So, you can really enjoy the story and the characters that keeps you invested. You really enjoy being War. He is tough as nails, quiet and no nonsense guy. Now, possibly the few things that I can't stand about this game is - unnecessarily large levels (most of them look nice, but somewhat unfinished and boring), bad fast traveling, some enemies that are unexpectedly hard and some really tiresome and boring puzzles. Yes, the game contains puzzles, some of them large and difficult, to make game mode little bit different and to take pause from all that fighting. That's a good idea, but why would you make some puzzles too long and boring? That was really unbearable and unnecessary. It kills your further desire to progress in the game, especially when you need to gather certain pieces of puzzle, or start all over again. Overall, if you are a hard core gamer that enjoys a good story and characters, and has patience for big puzzles... this is your turf.

Shadow Warrior (2013 Video Game)

Tiresome... but fun.

[6/10 · 15 January 2020]

You know, when I first heard that there is going to be a remake of "Shadow Warrior" game, which was one of my favorite FPS games in the 90s. Dynamic, cool and satisfying. So, the "remake" so to say, was inevitable.

The game plot holds pretty much the same stuff from the original. Lo Wang is a leading hero, Zilla is the main villain of the story, and of course, it is about Zilla's betrayal. So, Lo Wang is again on its own to save the world from Zilla and his supernatural armies. The story is basically, re-told and it has some new characters. In the original we had Wang, Zilla, Master Leap, bosses, enemies and some irrelevant chicks. Here we have characters that, OK, thanks to the new engines, AI and graphics which are far more developed. I would like to refer to Hoji, a demon that shares a bond with you and serves as your guide and a sarcastic friend, he can be annoying from time to time, though he can be also funny. We also have bosses, mafia bosses and some girl assassins, which does not serve too much to the story, nor are that much developed.

About the gameplay, design etc... The game visually looks very good. The level designs are good, with great lighting, decent graphics, sound design and character and weapons are design is also great. The avatar screen is good, and with your inventory and skills menu. Now, the changes are that Lo Wang can upgrade himself and his weapons. During your gameplay, you can open the menu and do the upgrades. This is a pretty interesting idea, but it is an already used cliché and it is a tiny but frustrating. But, better to upgrade yourself. You know why? Because enemies are really tough. Now, this is the weakest point in the game, there are certain parts of the levels in which you have to clean the entire area, so that you can proceed to the next one. That really looks like that Serious Sam crap, you know? Clear an entire big area, or you can't go anywhere. OK, areas here are smaller, but the enemies are insanely tough. Even on easy mode, they are really hard and you will die often and waste your ammo. So, it is better to keep upgrading yourself. And the result is - it gets really tiresome. The jokes are nothing special, I found stereotypes more funnier in the original, but here, I wasn't that impressed. Voice actors are pretty good. The actor who voiced Hoji was really good and entertaining. I didn't like the voice for Lo Wang that much, I expected to be more like in the original, not stereotypical, but to keep the manly, growling voice with little accent.

Overall, the game is actually pretty entertaining and enjoyable in visuals. But, the real problem is tough enemies and that long and tiresome area clearing. I do recommend it, but prepare for those tiresome parts.

Hellboy (2019)

Who is the target audience here?

[2/10 · 8 July 2019]

What a hell? No, seriously... what a hell? For who was this film made? The pacing is too fast, things happen too fast and without any sense. It doesn't have a proper build up and things are just thrown in our face randomly. This film is like a whimsical, noisy little brat which is out of control! There are, literally scenes so loud, without any apparent reason that drives you insane. And not to mention, combine that with humor which is scattered all over this poor film. Yes - humor! Out of nowhere, nearly in 90% of the film. Without any mercy, this film acts just like "The Last Jedi", or even "Predator"(2018).... Who were the writers and producers? No, really, who are they? Are they real filmmakers, or just bunch of hacks who wants to force biggest piles of loud crap to audience's faces? The action scenes are also all over the place. The film cannot take a decent rest for character to develop or make them likeable. No. Character talk and then - fight. The dialogue is bad and it seems like it was written by a 12 year olds. I bet that Mike Mignola had a stroke after he saw the final product. According to the IMDb, Mignola was far more directly involved with this film, in order to make it darker and true to the comic. How so? The only thing that is dark about this film is violence and gore. The gore is way over the top and not subtle at all. Sure, Hellboy comics has gore, but it is subtle! Here? Not even close. Jesus Christ... Now, I haven't read most of the Hellboy comic books, but I read some of the most crucial and well known short stories and collections. And, guess what? This film is total opposite of those. The comic book has a really good, dark and serious tone... but it seems that these writers, producers and director decided not to risk and make anything edgy, so they decided to make this loud mess.

So, let's check the actors and characters. This film contains some terrible characters and you cannot relate to them. These characters were only stapled on the big screen, but they have no presence, no charisma, no traits or development. So, David Harbour is our new Hellboy. I've seen some of his films, but did not notice his full potential back then. He is most famous for "Stranger Things", however I haven't saw that yet. I can see that he is trying hard to do something with the character of Hellboy, but it's not working. And it's not his fault, because the director and writers definitively did not give him anything proper to work with! But, in scenes where he's screaming... that was annoying. Also, the character is portrayed as a complete and utter jerk. Sure, Hellboy can be brash and jest on certain occasions. But, he is down to earth, serious and dark character. This Hellboy doesn't seem to take things seriously... Just like the makers of this film. Ian McShane plays professor Broom. This has to be the worst portrayal of Prof. Broom. McShane is an amazing actor, but they made this guy into a vulgar, non-likeable jerk! Have they even seen prof. Broom? Totally sweet, wise and caring character. This one was a total miss! And I feel sorry for McShane here, for appearing in this piece of turd. Sure, he did it for the paycheck and that's OK. But to make character like this? Not OK. Yep, as I said - he is vulgar. Now, don't get me wrong, I like swearing like every other person here. But, did you really had to make professor Broom to sound like Al Swearengen. Swearengen is another character played by McShane in brilliant TV series "Deadwood"and the character is known for constant swearing. Broom is not Swearengen! Just like I said before, the film was written by a 12 year olds who just discovered swearing. For f^^k's sake... To have swearing from other characters... it just doesn't fit. I am not saying it's inappropriate, I am saying that there was no reason for it. Now, we have Milla Jovovich. Her performance was somewhat fair, and she has a decent villainous presence, but the character was written poorly and she will fade away very quick from your memory. Not memorable at all. And she did not turn into dragon just like in comics... why not? Now, Alice Monaghan... She is an Irish girl who can talk to ghosts... and played by Sasha Lane? Lane is a British actress of mixed races. I don't see why would you cast a mixed race actress to play an already established character that is white and red headed... It would seem that Millenium pictures was threatened by Disney... why do I have such a feeling? Since Disney loves to spew all those crap about diversity and forcing it down to people's throat like a religion. Anyway, her character was not that interesting, she was pretty much over-powered in the film and of course, just like Rey in "Star Wars", she did not know that she had it in her. But, I think, over time she'll be good in her craft. Also, we have Mj. Ben Daimio... played by Daniel Kim. Nothing really special. We also have a character called Gruagach... a large, humanoid pig-head creature that is also without any reason crass... But the actor who voices it. He was OK. Also, the Lobster guy? Sure, he was comics, but he has no purpose here. Other characters? Nothing new and nothing special...

The CGI was OK in some scenes, but in most of them - terrible. Music score was also awful. It is extremely rare from me to say that there is a bad musical score in films. But, this film has it. And that is another thing that grieves me terribly. The score was noisy and out of place. Why? Why not making a decent score that fits into film? Well, I guess that this one actually fits because, if you are making crap... add more crap and make it even crappier. I could not wait for it to be over, honestly, because it just keeps going and going. Stretched all the way into agonizing eternity. Even during and after the ending credits... it just won't let you go. Why?!

So, I don't recommend this film, at the end... throw it into fiery lake of hell and let it stay there and melt for eternity, because this is just another proof of how Hollywood lost it's integrity. No more ideas, no more risks, no more original stuff... just the same bland, clichéd things from today's pathetic, uncreative Hollywood... Audiences don't deserve this. Either Hollywood must regain it's good old reputation, or audiences will rebel with their wallets. And I support that! You want our money, Hollywood? EARN IT!!

Beyond Loch Ness (2008 TV Movie)

Nessie I think we are not in Scotland anymore.

[4/10 · 19 August 2016]

Yet another attempt to bring back good old Loch Ness monster to the big screen. In this case, smaller straight to video screen. The movie opens with group of lousy scientists who found an egg of plesiosaur. And few minutes later, Nessie founds them, and eats them. Along with the leading scientist, leaving only his son James. 30 years later James arrives at Lake Superior, somewhere in North America, near Canada, because he thinks that Nessie might be there.

Now, let's start with some questions. How did Nessie got there? Did it really took 30 years? Isn't this supposed to be about fabled Loch Ness monster? Yeah, Brian gives us answers during the film but those are not plausible at all. So, this is one of those low-B movies, with the revenge element. Because our leading hero James, played by Brian Krause (once a well known actor from late 80s and early 90s), who is a cryptozoologist, but only presents himself like that, because he only uses his knowledge to find the monster and kill every last one of them. So, that is the only one-dimensional motive that James has. James is rather dull, boring, non-charismatic, just settled to find and kill a monster, nothing more. And he looks clichéd with his rugged looks, fedora hat and long, trench coat. Just to give you an idea that you don't mess with him. Cuz' he hunts monsters. So, that's just about it. The movie revolves around James, and a sheriff Karen Riley and her loser son Josh. None of these characters are interesting, or developed, they are just there to get us through this boring ordeal. We also have supporting cast consisted from dumb, obnoxious and naïve teenagers who are just there to give a generic treatment to Josh. You know, the usual - bullying and mocking. We also have late Don S. Davis as a deputy sheriff. Don was a good actor, and not worthy of these kind of movies. Nothing much to say about other stuff, the CGI is friggin' terrible, script is usual stuff about vengeance, acting performances are not convincing, editing - meh, camera work is just wrong. While subjective camera is there to show Nessie's vision, the monster is show to move underwater, but when the camera is showin the vision, it's clearly ABOVE the water. Camera operator and the crew needs to get informed on how creature of this background works under and above the water. Now, one more thing. About the monster. I think it's important to say a thing, or two about the monster. It's silly. As I stated, the CGI is terrible, and at one point James's father said that Nessie is Plesiosaur. The monster doesn't even look like Plesiosaur, nor even like any of those dinosaurs of the same order. It likes like some sort of... well, dragon. And that's it. This is one of those movies that you should watch with friends to have a good laugh, or just trash it.

Aliens vs. Predator: Requiem (2007)

Well, just what the title says...

[3/10 · 19 August 2016]

It seems that the title is consistent, it seems that we got what we wanted. But, is it good? Well, not that much. We simply got what was written in the title and that's it. The only consistent part is the movie title. The movie starts from the ending of AVP (2004), so we can easily call this film "AVP 2". A Pred-Alien somehow grows pretty fast and kills every predator on board and the spacecraft crashed somewhere in the woods of Colorado. Not only that Pred-Alien survived the crash, but also a few facehuggers. So, alarm is triggered at predator's home planet. Yeah, this is the first film where the Predator home world is shown. However, I don't like it personally. Because it looks like some kind of Aztec architecture... it looks human-made. I mean, come on, why not make it look a bit more 'extra-terrestrial'? I expected some kind of rain forest planet, with specific type of architecture and with some kind of retro technology around. So, a special kind of predator, a 'cleaner predator' so to say, flies away to earth to clean the mess behind other predators and to find other xenomorph threats. After many incidents, the residents are gathering to survive.

So, basically, we got this nothing special film. Where all attention was pointed to our title characters and their looks. So, why human character? They were just pointless and waste of time and money. They were dull, predictable and undeveloped. They perfectly fit the profile of slasher killer victims. They were just a bags of meat to develop the further actions and final battle between two title characters. Aliens are looking good, Predator also looks good, as more dangerous and more special kind of Predator. Make up department and costume department did a great job with both of them and I give a respect to Tom Woodruff Jr. and his team of practical special effects and puppets and also I am grateful for lack of CGI, and of course I think that Ian Whyte is not bad in the role of Predator. Soundtrack is solid, editing is generic, sound effects are decent. The place chosen for the final conflict is, well kind of unusal. A little bit of woods, a little bit of sewers, and a little bit of pool and hospital. There is one problem actually. At least 75% of action is shot in dark. Why? Is that for intensity? Or mystery? I don't get it. Was it filmed like that only to hide their alien puppets and not to see details on predator costume more clearly? Why? As I said before I think that predator costume and alien puppets are good. Even stuntmen in alien costumes were good. Why not showing that in a bit more brighter light? The actors... well they weren't that special in their performances and I think that the director didn't even want them to act accordingly. There were simply not enough emotions between them. The story development? Only for title characters.

Overall, this movie is pretty bad, but no the worst ever. It just gave you what was promised in the title. And that's just it. It has some solid fun, and that's the only reason why should you watch it.

The Legend of Tarzan (2016)

Average, empty film.

[5/10 · 19 August 2016]

This is one quite empty, uninteresting film. Honestly, I found old Johnny Weissmuller Tarzan film far more better than this. I even found Bo Derek naked breast and bottom version better and to mention that I enjoy low budget TV series "Tarzan Epic Adventures" with Joe Lara in title role… So, what happened here? Directing and writing is just average, nothing that spectacular, intriguing, or investing in the film. It has some, decent story and development in it, but characters are just dull, one dimensional and empty. Tarzan resides in London with Jane, trying to act like nobleman John Clayton in civilized society. And that goes pretty hard for both of them. A man named Rom (Waltz) staged a trap for Tarzan to return to Africa so that Rom could bring Tarzan to a tribe to trade him for diamonds. So, Tarzan must find the way to save himself, Jane and others. The decent story, but it still has that diamond cliché crap.

Let's take a look at our title character. Alexander Skarsgard is a good actor. He really is. He was chosen for the role because of his height and already athletic built. And that was OK. His acting was just uninteresting… like he had something else in mind and decided to perform with only one emotion and only one tone of voice. His bright hair and tan just visually doesn't give you a real Tarzan image. Tarzan should have dark hair and distinctive dark tan. I think that director and writer didn't read Burroughs's book. Tarzan is depicted without loincloth. OK, I can live with that, but, where is the knife? The knife is something like a trademark to Tarzan. And he doesn't have it. How come? The Tarzan roar? We can hear it twice in the film, and both are the same (lazy work there), and they are definitively do not comes from Skarsgard… somebody else did this roar. Guaranteed. One more thing… there is a scene where Tarzan shows his hands and how big and developed they are. The thing is… his hands somewhat "mutated" because of his raising with the apes. That was… the depiction of the fastest evolution ever. And it's just ridiculous. Jane is played by Margot Robbie. Robbie was there to be something like a spokeswoman for Tarzan, just to tell the audience hos dangerous he is. She was the emptiest of them all. Yes, they wrote her strong, resourceful and that was just it. There is a scene that suggest that she should act like a damsel in distress. And she wouldn't. I think they made her like that, just not to upset feminists, or something. Samuel L. Jackson was probably the best actor here, but his talents were sabotaged by using him just to be a comic relief spewing around funny remarks about everything. That was just a waste of a good actor. Christoph Waltz plays Leon Rom, basically… I think so many people noticed this, well so did I. He was definitively inspired by two Indiana Jones villains. Waltz is a good actor… but his villainous character of Rom was just not that interesting. I think it's extremely important to make your main villain interesting, charismatic and likable. But Rom had none of those qualities. He has this necklace with a cross weapon… which fate is pretty predictable. Djimon Hounsou plays supporting villain and the leader of leopard tribe from Opar. A good actor, visually looks menacing. But, also… no charisma, or anything interesting.

Costumes were good, soundtrack was solid (it has that typical intense violin, which did not change since 2005), there was some of stages built for film, which was OK. Editing and sound effects were good. Visuals of Africa were not that thrilling. And, here is the reason why. CGI. They have CGI-ed every damn animal in this film. Even the most important characters – gorillas. Why? Was it hard to find some real life gorillas? Was it hard to make a realistic gorilla costume? No matter how fake they look like, at least they are there and they are more interactive with the characters on film. CGI was not that great and it spoiled that good visuals of flora and fauna in Africa. That was just lazy. They couldn't even found any other animal for the scenes. Everything is CGI. So, that's where the all money went. On CGI, Samuel L. Jackson, Christoph Waltz and … definitively on Alexander Skarsgard's diet and workout for the film. I just can't believe it… that this was the most focal point of entire filming. His hard workout and tough change of diet. They were all worried about Alex, will he be able to look like Tarzan on time? Come on, man… Why not worry about developing characters, better script, better villain, better Tarzan, better acting, better development in characters and story. And less CGI. So, overall, this is one dull, empty film, it's not the worst, nor that bad… it's just not that special. You can watch with the family. At least it offers a decent family fun.

Doom II: Hell on Earth (1994 Video Game)

My favorite FPS.

[10/10 · 21 June 2016]

I was about 10 years old when I hold grasp to this game... It was like an epiphany for me. I have never played the first "Doom", but when you are a 10 year old, you don't care, let's just play the game. I just couldn't get enough of this game. Every time I played it, I was possessed! I was pretty much an insane gamer just for "Doom", and when I got the cheat codes... how delightful was that. But, enough about that part of my childhood, let's dive in.

According to the story, you are the same marine as before... the Doomguy, as we call him, finds himself on planet Earth, and he finds out that the Earth itself was taken over by demons and turned it into a hellhole. So, you take your guns and... just go to save the world. It's basically simple stuff, really. There isn't much you can do. Just run around kill monsters (with various weapons, for every occasion, of course), finding key cards to progress through the level. You have boss fights on the end of every episode (episodes are continuous), or you have a multiple large opponents. The Doomguy could just walk, or run fast and that's it. In later years, they added a jump and crouch.

So, what is exactly so good about "Doom 2", or "Doom", or "Doom Ultimate"? Why is it still holding up, even today? Well, almost 24 years ago... graphics were top notch, but today, they are just bunch of cubes... without any real, rendered form. The edge that holds even today is that graphics team were very dedicated and imaginative and they designed monsters, demons, weapons and levels the best way possible at that time. The sound effects were just awesome and they are holding up even today. Gameplay is amazing. It's dynamic and simple, and it's doesn't have time to explain itself. That's what I like about these old early 90s PC games... they were not that big and not that pretentious to give us a bunch of story details at the beginning of the game for example... and to move your character through an endless tutorial, or "story mode", that you need to follow. It was a time when games just cut the crap and start shooting. AI for the time was nothing special, it was about to get more perfected as the time goes by. So, that's it... nothing more. Everything else is so simple that is not even worthy of mentioning. We have aliens, monsters and demons... I don't know which inspirations were used for them, I think it's something from the Bible... when it comes to hell monsters and demons and other things.

That is just fascinating, that there was no some good explanation for the demons with whom are you fighting. Who are they? Are they aliens from some deep space and they came from some space hell? Did demons showed to us in the form of hellish creatures from Christian bible? Who knows. And that's what I like the best about this game. You just have to use your own imagination. The same thing goes for the level design. You just can't tell if you are on earth. There are maybe few levels that suggest that you are, in fact on earth. But the others... well not that much. And I love the design of levels in the game, just great. It also set you in the imagination and questioning yourself... "where the hell am I?"... There are of course some new weapons and enemies and they are good.

In conclusion, what to say? It IS one of the best FPS games ever made from that old time when the things were simple and it holds today far more better than you realize. How do I know that? Just look at bunch of modes and various other "Doom" versions on line. People enjoy making them and other people... enjoy playing them. Doom is one of those games that just never gets old. Play it and enjoy it...

Jurassic Park III (2001)

One gigantic slap in the face with dino turd to the original Jurassic Park fans all over the world.

[3/10 · 25 May 2016]

I wasn't that excited for this film, after founding out that T Rex is not a star anymore. But, I watched it, just to see what a hell they did with it. I did not have any high expectations… and after the film, it turns out to be a large disappointment.

In my opinion, Jurassic Park (1993) is one of the best movies I have ever saw. The beautiful, stylish SF/adventure with great directing, cast and CGI. The sequel Lost World: Jurassic Park (1997) was not bad, but it did posses the beauty of the first one. But the third film… is just a low, yet evil move. A really big slap in the face to the fans and audience. Usually, I don't find most of sequels, prequels, or remakes necessary, but for this one I decide to make an exception, but after finding out about some things, noted above on the beginning of the review. The film is directed by Joe Johnston who single handedly destroyed Jurassic Park trilogy. This guy is a bad director, just bad. It took 3 people to write a screenplay for this film… no wonder they ruined the whole stuff too.

We bring back Dr. Alan Grant and dr. Ellie Settler (although her character has only 2-3 minutes of screen time in total and she wasn't that interesting). Grant and his assistant Billy are tricked by fake rich man Kirby (played by William H. Macy) and his wife Amanda (Tea Leoni) to take them to the island Isla Nublar to act like a dinosaur guides. But, it turns out that Kirby and Amanda are looking for their son Eric. So they have to endure a rough jungle terrain filled with all kind of dinosaurs. The story is just ridiculous. Are you kidding me? People are so desperate to kidnap other people because they believe that they know about the island where their son is located? The premise just doesn't make sense. And you expect for the kid to survive on an island full of dinosaurs? Come on… The actors (even the talented ones) were just ridiculous in their performances. The characters are predictable and dumb. Really dumb, unreasonable characters… That slap in the face to the audience and fans… that is a large spoiler. Watch the movie if you want to know what I'm talking about. The music score is not bad, composed by Don Davis, who just took from John Williams and change it a little bit. Sound effects were good, CGI could be better and I can appreciate the usage of practical effects and audio-animatronic effects. Other things just suck. There's also a subplot which is based upon new scientific findings (from that time) and they decided to put it in the film, OK some of that stuff is interesting, and some of that is just ridiculous. Some of the new changes is that velociraptors had a crest on their head and that the Spinosaur was the biggest carnivore who ever walked the earth. Overall, this is one huge dino turd and it deserves to be forgotten.

Cyborg (1989)

Low budget but it kind of works.

[6/10 · 25 May 2016]

This is, I think, one of the rare Van Damme films that I really appreciate. So, let's dive in. Van Damme plays a mercenary Gibson who is following a gang of pirates lead by merciless Fender. At the beginning of the film, Gibson meets the title cyborg who has information about the cure for the post-apocalyptic state that they are in. But, she is captured by Fender, so Gibson is teamed up with another rookie Nady to find and stop Fender. Now, I can easily say that this is one of the first, or if not the first Van Damme film that has revenge element, just like in 95% of his films. He was a villain in "No Retreat, No Surrender" and in "Black Eagle", and he was a leading hero in full contact fighting film "Bloodsport", but none of these films had that revenge element from the very start. So, this one is the very first.

Albert Pynn… well, what to say, he is not the best director around, but when it comes to some low budget action films, I think he distinguished himself pretty solid. And I think "Cyborg" is his best work. The film itself is pretty fun. Silly, but fun, with no developed characters. Van Damme is not the best actor around, but I think it's tolerable for the first time to see him in this revenge element action film. But, later it's not that fun. Deborah Richter plays Nady. She was nothing that special, only to be around to serve as a hot and cute love interest for Van Damme. Dayle Haddon plays cyborg, named Pearl Prophet. Dayle was pretty good, but in some scenes, she showed some emotions that would stand out within the typical human being. Yet, it's not that much explained how did she got those emotions, she was programmed only to bring back information for scientist who intends to save the world. We also have early appearances from Ralf Moller and Stefanos Miltasakakis. But, the guy who steals the show is Vincent Klyn who plays Fender. OK, Vincent is not that good at acting, but he had that menacing looks, deep voice and leader charisma. He had some sort of his own unique style. But, the pale eyes… what was that all about? There are dark toned people with pale, gray eyes… why is that unusual in this film? And, of course, you start laughing when Fender is in his fighting mode, because then he goes way over the top.

The music score was so low budget, I think they afforded only two or three instruments. And only few scores were composed, love theme, Fender theme, fighting theme, Haley theme (Haley is a friend of Gibson) and main theme… But I think that it wasn't that bad and it had a lot of potential. Sound mixing is good, I think that sound effects when it comes to the knife sounds and punching are good. Especially punching. The punching sound effect was so powerful, that you just enjoy it. The filming locations were, I got to admit pretty solid. They really carefully choose the locations. Make up is pretty good. Other stuff… well, not that special. This is a solid Van Damme stuff. I recommend it.

Jurassic World (2015)

Only worthy because of the end

[6/10 · 25 May 2016]

A Few years ago I heard that the fourth JP movie is planning. I wasn't that much excited, because of all stories I heard… about hybrid mutants and other stuff. However, I must say that I enjoyed it very much. This film brought a very exciting ending, and I think that's the reason why this film rocked so much at the box office. And I promise you I will explain to you in the spoilers section. I'll mark where the spoilers are.

In 2001, "Jurassic Park 3" simply ruined the franchise, and really, it took 14 years to heal. Now, the plot is little bit ridiculous. Because some rumors about hybrid dinosaurs were true. The movie is set in 2015, and of course it shows today's typical society, people's faces and ears stapled to cell phones and tablets. Two parents are sending their kids to the Jurassic World. Gray and Zach. The characters of Zach and Gray did not leave that much of an impression, one is a Dino-nut, spewing all the dinosaur trivia and names, because audience is probably not that informed and Zach is just missing his girlfriend. These two tare thrown into a deadly situation, only to practice their screaming and to gives us that old cliché of youngsters in trouble.Then we have Owen Grady (Pratt), who works in the 'World' as a raptor tamer. How is that working? How can you tame an extremely primitive, overlarge lizard? He is also charming and horny, but I think that's Chris Pratt's persona and there are some of those charming, funny scraps of Starlord from "The Guardians of the Galaxy". Then, we have Clair (Howard). She is a park manager, and just somewhat a female version of John Hammond (wearing all that white). She is not a CEO, but merely a director of the operations of the park, because Hammond hasn't open his own park yet in the first film, and he was a CEO. Her character was pretty much strong, she was ready for action when it was required and she is pretty much married to her job. Her character brings out something that is just silly in the film. Now, she explains that the people are not excited by the "Jurassic World" anymore, I quote her "No one is interested in dinosaurs anymore" and "Kids these days are looking at the Stegosaurus as an elephant in the zoo." Are you kidding me? Are those kids so hard to please? Those are dinosaurs! Scientist brought back dinosaurs! And they are not intriguing and interesting anymore? Seriously? So, we are brought to our main antagonist of the film – Indominus Rex. What? You gave him "Rex" at the end? So, he is basically a new king in the block. This is our dinosaur hybrid made from DNA of other various animals. So it's basically a super dinosaur, who can, for example use camouflage. And is it just me, or that does Indominus looks like giant Velociraptor? Then we have park's CEO Masrani (Irrfan Khan) who is somewhat, larger than life comedy relief. And he is not funny. We have a human villain – Vic Hoskins (D'Onofrio) who is really irritating character. The character is badly written, you just don't know if he is some sleazy imp, or a hard ass, stupid guy who loves control over things. He just wasn't that interesting. Henry Wu (B D Wong) returns to us from the first film, as the leader of genetic research from InGen. And just to gives us explanation for Indominus Rex. So, he is an Indominus Spokesperson.

Actors were pretty good. Pratt was basically a typecast because of his funny and charming persona. Khan was good. The kids were nothing special. Vincent D'Onofrio is easily the best actor in the film, but I think he was there for the money. BD Wong, Omar Sy, Jake Johnson (a spineless, funny park operator who wears an old Jurassic Park shirt. And that's one scene I didn't like in the film, because Clair asks him to remove his shirt, because people have died. Oh, really? Than I have to question this film, because, when your movie is named "Jurassic World" and has dinosaurs in it and it's rated PG-13, you don't expect unicorn ponies doing some uni porn. You expect dinosaurs eating people and that's basically director's , producers and writes way of saying "Our film is better than the old ones"). Now, let's discuss CGI. It could have been better. I am not joking, it's just not that convincing. I think that CGI artist should have watch first film to see the excellence of the early CGI which was totally awesome. And there was just a tiny bit of audio animatronics in the film. It would be better if they had it more. Editing was good, pretty much intense. The Set design was pretty good. Exterior is appalling and thrilling. Camera work was solid, directing was not that , it was a good fun. When it comes to the script, why did it take a five people to wrote it? That just ruined the film. Sound and stunts were good. Music score was just a derivative from John Williams's brilliant score from the old films. The dinosaur design remained mostly the same and it's good.

HERE COMES SPOILERS

As I promised, here's why I think that this film was great at the box office – because it brought back T Rex. And that's why I said, in the review title that this is the only thing the movie worth watching. T-Rex is back to have an awesome fight with Indominus. Now that was the only part of the movie when I was just thrilled and excited. I don't remember when was the last time I saw this kind of good old battle at the end of some new film. a classic monster film. Overall, this is one entertaining monster film and I recommend it. Have fun.

Masters of the Universe (1987)

Two words: Frank Langella.

[6/10 · 25 May 2016]

So, this precious little gem, from the 80s, still remains a special gem in our minds. First of all, let me be clear, this is movie is bad, not the worst, but really bad and campy. I don't know how Cannon pictures took over the rights for this film, and how no other well-known, or larger studio didn't take the rights of something so popular. Really, He-Man and Masters of the Universe were quite popular and favorite show for kids (and to mention all that toys sales…), but was it a good idea? Was it necessary? Even for the 80s?

Now, the budget was ridiculously low, and the movie did not worked well at box office, but it has, even today, a loyal cult following. The story is funny, it's just a movie adaptation of some typical (not exactly) episode about a cosmic key that is wanted by Skeletor. Now, the story and directing, including script are cheesy, meant for kids of course, but when you get older, you realize how dumb that clichéd that was. They did not follow the original idea entirely, the characters do not look too much as themselves from the original TV show, they did not even put their original super powers, or special abilities, He-Man doesn't even have his Battle cat. So, that makes things disappointing. The acting is ridiculous, except maybe for Meg Foster… and of course Frank Langella… I'll talk about him soon enough.

I have to admit that Dolph Lundgren was a pretty good choice for He- Man, but, the guy can't act, and he looks pretty much older and they never referred to him as "Adam". Meg Foster was good as Evil-Lyn and I think she was a good choice and she put some of her charm and poisonous sexiness to her character… I vouch for her. This was one of the first major roles of Courtney Cox, thought she did not tried that much, nor her character was all that developed. Her boyfriend Kevin (Robert Duncan McNeill) was just ridiculous. Other actors as James Tolkan (who played a cliché detective who waits his retirement), Neil Cypher (Man at Arms was not that special) was solid, Chelsea Field (Teela was not that much developed also, she was there to look good in her tight white battle-armor… ). I think that supporting actors as Bill Barty (who played Gwildor) was good. Though I also think that they made up this character, because they didn't have a budget for Orko. And also… Anthony Longinus was good as Blade, though he could do more fighting scenes with his character.

Now, for Frank Langella… what to say… Everyone who studies acting, want to become an actor, or is already an accomplished actor… must swear to Langella's performance here. I think that Langella saved this film. He was easily the best actor in the film. So this is a prime example of good actor, overshadowing all other actors. He just steals the entire show and he was glad about it, because his sons wanted him to play Skeletor. And look at him, that is the actor who had so much fun with his character and that would be a good advice to other actors… just have fun with it. Just like for example… Raul Julia in Street Fighter (1994).

The costumes and make up were not entirely bad, but the costumes could have been better. They could make them to identify more with the TV show characters. The costumes of Skeletor's storm troopers were too generic… too usual. The interior and exterior of planet Eternia was bad… it was just bad and unimaginative… So most of the scenes were filmed on earth. There are also people who thinks that this movie has gay overtones and make jokes about it… Really, some people can't notice something far more important in the film… Overall, I do recommend this gem, because it's a good, family fun, of course not to take for granted. And, yes… watch after credits.

Journey of Honor (1991)

Nothing special just that subject of 'what would happen if a Spanish swordsman fight a samurai?'

[5/10 · 25 May 2016]

The movie is quite mediocre. Nothing special happens, the plot itself is not that much epic, the characters are two dimensional and too much ordinary. The story is about shogun warrior Mayeda who is also a personal bodyguard to emperor's son. After the tragic death of his family, his emperor sends him to Spain to do trading. On the way and in the Spain, the trouble follows, so Mayeda has to protect emperor's sun and to show Spanish king his worth and trust. First of all script and directing are boring and too much predictable, obvious and simple. Simple, not in a good way. Now, we have actors… This is one of the 90s appearances of Sho Kosugi in foreign films. But, here, I'll be honest, he tries hard to do some serious acting. He really does, and his character of Mayeda his one tough guy. Honorable and brave, the kind of character that you really enjoy. His son Kane Kosugi appears as emperor's sun Yorimune and I think he was not that bad and I think the character is pretty well written. A young and brash prince, who also holds high respect for Spanish king and bravery. Although, he is bonded by Japanese tradition… when it comes to the women, for example. The leading lady is Cecillia, played by Polly Walker. Polly was young and still has to learn about acting. Cecillia was nothing special, you could easily see that she was there only to fell in love with Mayeda. The leading villain is Don Pedro, played by David Essex. Pedro was funny and typical (spoiled and easily insulted) villain, full of boring pride. While David Essex didn't even try to act here. I was just not that convinced that he was Spanish. Now, for the serious stuff when it comes to the actors. We have John Rhys-Davies here. Yep, as a supporting Turkish villain. This is one of those times, when John started (perhaps) to appear in these low budget movies. We also have Toshiro Mifune, who plays Japanese emperor. He was OK… Mifune hardly fails in his performance. And we also have Christopher Lee as a Spanish king. What an excellent choice for the role, and to give a high ruling position in contrast to Mifune's Japanese emperor. That was just great. Lee was good, also hardly to fail. Although he looked kind of disinterested in his part. Other things as music, editing… well nothing special, as I said before… The movie also has a pretty interesting subplot about an evil plot that christians have with secret samurai clan to kill young prince. I could easily say, (maybe I am wrong) that this movie shows some evil Christian influence on high royals from that time. I don't necessarily recommend this film. But, if you are a fan of sword fighting, especially in this kind of film where Spanish swordsman fights a samurai… but who will win? For that, you need to see the movie.

Doom (2005)

Play the game first, then make an idea

[5/10 · 15 April 2016]

You know, I was pretty much excited when I heard that here is going to be a "Doom" movie. Based upon an 1993 popular and one of the best, good old, ms-dos, first person shooters that moved the standards… And I was all full of expectations and keep wondering, how it will look? Is it going to work? And the answer is… no. Not, exactly.

The director Andrzej Bartkowiak has a reputation as one of the worst action directors today. Basically, each and every one of his moves ended up badly. But, better him to direct "Doom", than Uwe Boll. The ridiculous script and completely different and dumb story was written by Dave Callahan and Wesley Strick. Did these guys (including Andrzej himself) ever played "Doom"? Did they even try to do a research of the old, original games and their plot? Guess not. The movie just doesn't have any relations to the first two video games. Yes, I admit that the story of the first games was pretty much ridiculous, about hell breaking out in space… and one man army has to fight it, all alone. I think this film has appeared only because the Doom 3 game was out year before and the fans were loud. In a positive way, perhaps, I liked the game, but I think that the old ones are the best. And we can all notice that director and writers were borrowing heavily from Doom 3, but of course… with dumb changes about genetically designed monsters, whilst the third game still had that hell breaks loose in the space… only with less levels about hell, while the first two games were done just so… Let's just say that you just can't tell when you are in hell, and when you are not.

So, there was an incident on a space station and a group of marines were sent to help. Lead by Sarge (The Rock). Yep, that is his name… because Muscle Man, or Cypher Rage were already taken. OK, The Rock was somewhat fun, and because of his physique and no acting talent, he played the role of Sarge well. Next, we have our hero, the Doom guy, if you will, played by Karl Urban (although his name was John Grimm). I think that Urban knew how bad this film is going to be, so he decided not to give a flying damn about it. You can clearly see that in his performance. Our leading lady is Samantha Grimm (played by Rosamund Pike), well, she was OK, but nothing that engaging, or interesting… or developed. The entire marine team is basically your everyday cliché team. We have the crazy one, the horny one, the quiet one, the drugged one, the religious one and the Japanese one with the hard name to pronounce… So, you don't care for any of them. The movie itself is just wrong and silly, but it has a solid pace, good action and some decent special effects and make up… The plot is very, very simple, which makes the stuff easier if you want to watch it again, it's no brainer, actually!

Imagine that they filmed a movie based upon old games, it would take more budget, but also more imagination and simple plot. So, it's up to you if you are interested for this one.