Change Your Image
Upload An Image
Crop And Save
I don't know who you are. I don't know what you want. If you are looking for a long detailed review, I can tell you I don't have time for that. But what I do have are a very particular set of skills; skills I have acquired over a very long time of watching movies. Skills that make me a trustworthy when it comes to reviewing the movies. If you think this movie is just a good fast paced action, has good acting from main character and is enjoyable, if you are ready to suspend your disbelief, that'll be the end of it. I will not look for you, I will not pursue you. But if you think this is cinematography masterpiece, jewel of modern film-making and is on par with the greatest movies of all time, I will look for you, I will find you, and I will kill you.
One of the most unintelligent movies I've seen
This my friends, is what happens when people with IQ of a monkey but full chests of gold start to believe that they can be filmmakers.
As every action flick of Timur Bekmambetov, this one is pretentious, big-budget, mindless, one-CGI-effect-over-and-over-again, sorry excuse for a movie.
As of plot, nothing original goes there. Some boring white-collar guy finds out the hard way that he's the son of the member of some ancient old blablabla secret blablabla supernatural, xman-like bullet-throwing society of ladies and gentlemen.
He goes through routine circle of 1. denial 2. eager acceptance 3. understanding of the meaning of life and his role in balancing the chaos of the universe.
Sounds your typical pop-corn blockbuster ain't it? Well, not exactly.
Here you don't root for the hero. He is complete moron. You don't sympathize him. He's better be killed. You don't even understand why it would be good if he survives at the end of the day. He kills tons of innocent people. He is stupid. He is psychotic. He sweets every other second on the screen.
You don't get the plot. Though it is super-simple. You don't give a flying fly about any of the characters. (Yes, even superhot Angelina Jolie).
Effects are good. But they get repetitive. It's all the same over and over again. It's far fetched. It's bad.
This movie does just one thing: Screams that it have big budget. That's it. Nothing more. You don't get anything more out of this trash, shot by people with IQ of a monkey, but chests full of gold.
The One Warrior (2011)
What can you do with 100$?
...You can smash down with your friends in the pub, go on a romantic date with your girlfriend... or shoot the movie.
Obviously, shooting the movie is funniest and most original thing to do as it doesn't happen everyday and if you ask if 100 bucks is enough for it, here's the answer: It is. Just watch this movie.
Unpretentious, cheap, Z-Grade Fantasy movie with cliché plot with twist in the end. Costumes, made by wives and girlfriends of the actors during their spare time and weapons bought on Amazon market (in section of toys for 6-12 y.o. kids). As bad as it sounds, this movie is in fact good. It never sells itself as something superb or high-class. It doesn't take itself seriously and you watch it with smile on your face whole time trough.
Actors can't act, surroundings look cheap, screenplay is uber-simple and still it's pretty easy to enjoy it. (only if you have correct expectations).
For the plus side... fighting scenes are well choreographed in fact.
I wouldn't want to rate this movie. It won't be fair, because as a MOVIE - it deserves nothing, but as a home-video of friends who decided to roleplay and capture it on camera, this thing is really great.
Next time I will have free 100$ in my pocket, I may go shoot the sequel of it.
Kingdom of Gladiators (2011)
Even Boobies Can not Save This
It is a rare gem. B-Movie with sword-fighting boobies and hot villain in it. What else would you want for "so-bad-that-its-good" type of thing? Apparently nothing, but the director put incredible effort to make it unwatchable.
Movie starts with a king (who looks more like aged, retired postman (No offense to the honest postmen)) sitting in a field moaning about all the sins he have committed. He asks God for forgiveness, but all he gets is creature in a cape who is supposed to sound scary. Creature proposes deal to the king and before the latter answers anything, creature seals the deal.
Bad, bad, cheater creature with a cape.
Now the postman... sorry, his highness postman, has to give all his children to the bad, bad, cheater creature with a cape, but apparently decides to cheat too with her daughter Luna.
Years after, His highness Mr. Cheater Postman celebrates something with annual gladiatorial fights, when suddenly her HOT lost daughter arrives.
Then there is CGI-blood, female gladiator with big bottom, big breast and big head, something waking up, ugly woman warning the king about curse, more CGI-blood, bad fighting scenes, bad sex scene and ending credits.
It INDEED is one of the worst movies ever made in any country.
The Three Musketeers (2011)
Assassin's Creed IV: The Musketeers
...This is most suitable title for this movie and if there are people reading this review, who are also familiar with the mentioned game, they will totally agree with me.
Forget all about history, Alexander Dumas, Elementary logic and any believability. Just sit back and watch for well-shot fight scenes (Mix of Antonio Banderas' Zorro's and said above Assassin's Creed) and some imaginary pre-steam-punk period France... with little bit of England too.
Cardinal is the bad guy. Lady De Winter is double-faced spy and Musketeers kick ass - That's enough story for you to enjoy mindless action.
With this cast, acting could be better. Music is nothing exceptional and true lovers of classic will be highly insulted.
3 Stars for the stupid movie + 1 star for Mila being hot as always...
OK, But is Jonathan English... English?
...And here's what I mean: The movie is absolutely watchable (if you are a fan of historical action, medieval theme and hack n' slash of course). The Battle scenes are shot perfectly. Costumes are not 100% authentic, but not so fantasy-driven as other "historical" movies tend to create these days, but: In places the movie raises the question: did the director any historical research prior to arm his team with cameras and lights or not at all? How, being English, is possible to not know own history if not in details, than at least to some degree? The case here is not about "artistic freedom", that sometimes demands to sacrifice realism or fact to make an art better. The inaccuracies occur here in places, where there aren't any necessity of them.
The rip-offs from the other movies were obvious as well. I don't know whether the authors really did intend to make "medieval magnificent seven" but if they did, they failed. Each character in Magnificent Seven is someone you deeply care. Someone you deeply know. Someone who you never forget. Each of them is unique.
Here: They are seven as well. They have one womanizer. They have on guy who throws knifes. They have one unexperienced youngster who asks for the trouble. They have one huge guy who chops wood when the group is approaching him... But that's it. That's where similarities end. Neither of these characters have any charisma.
Out of two main villains, one plays it's part really good, while other has not much to do except swinging the huge Axe.
Templar - the main protagonist of the movie, is played well as well... but again, his character is cliché as well and not as deep as writers could have imagined. (No fault of the actor here. He worked with what he had).
Plot is simple and somewhat unrealistic. 7 heroes, together with random 11 soldiers are guarding the castle from thousands of bad guys. (One English king and whining Danes who run at the first sight of blood among their ranks.
Bad guys need castle so badly because it's on the strategic spot on the English map and if King who regrets signing Magna Carta wants to rule autocratically once again, he must take it at all costs.
Here you will need all your suspend of disbelief to not raise the questions such as: why the rebels have sent only 7 men with questionable reputation to hold such an important spot...
Overall, like I said in the beginning of this review, the movie is watchable. If you're looking for some good action, blood and gore, you'll get what you paid for. If you're history buff though and easily offended about historical inaccuracies, you can avoid this one.
Ao, le dernier Néandertal (2010)
Fails exactly at where it aims
The movie is about last of the Neanderthals, named Ao, who after loosing all his clan ventures back from Siberia to Southern Europe where he came from, to find his brother, Oa.
The film is set in pretty much realistic environment and the main guy is believable Neanderthal, though maybe little bit softer at heart, than we imagine Neanderthals would be.
We see realistic scene of his ugly Neanderthal wife giving birth to child. Realistic scene of Ao and his mate fighting bear and so on... So we prepare ourself to dig deeper into movie with documentaristic approach, we are going to see prehistoric life of humans and Neanderthals but after Ao's departure from Siberia and his first meeting with humans, the problems start.
Giving that the action scenes of the movie aren't all that impressive, the love theme is not so original, there is little drama or tension that can capture your attention, it would be smartest thing to continue the movie in only available way to make it stand-out and original - I mean, making it as realistic, as possible and while it started good in that direction, it failed miserably very soon.
Ao meets human girl who has the appearance of top-model, apparently shaves her legs and armpits and is just too damn sexy and unbelievable for all her surrounding people and nature.
From that moment we get cliché-driven, stupid love-escape story with predictable end. Good bye realism... good bye exploring of prehistoric life... good bye the most interesting part of the movie.
I understand that it's NOT documentary and director has all the right to soften the harsh prehistoric world, but it's just too much.
This could be worse if girl couldn't act. Fortunately she can, and does it pretty good actually, but alas, she can't save the movie.
This kind of cinematography could have success in only one case, but somewhere along the production director went the very wrong way.
Overall, mediocre film
Age of the Dragons (2011)
Missed at everything
there were few reasons for why I decided to watch the movie (Despite warnings from my clever friends, who I should listen in the first place).
Reason #1: I like 2 actors who took part in this movie, they are Danny Glover and Vinnie Jones. They're not biggest actors in the world but they are likable fellows who certainly know how to entertain audience.
Reason #2: I like steam-punk and fantasy genres and the movie was promising to mix those two.
Reason #3: I think that Moby-Dick is one of those literature classics that is hard to dislike or hard to be unknown for almost anyone, even the most uneducated people, so it is always interesting when another version of the story occurs on the screens.
So I had 3 great reasons to watch the movie. Favorite actors, favorite genre and the masterpiece, on which the story is based.
I don't know how they managed to screw this, but EVERYTHING in this movie went wrong right from the start.
Actors who knew how to act had nothing to work with. Main character was screaming and begging for overacting and Danny didn't deny him the pleasure. Jones tried to act (his biggest mistake) but that's not what we love him for, so he failed. Other actors weren't actors at all. Maybe they have diplomas, but they didn't act. Oh... and the chick... well, the chick was hot.
The movie is steam-punk without steam, and it's fantasy, only because there are dragons. I can understand how the vagon/ship thing moved though. It was this vitriom (or something) that made it move but they never say a thing about it. The screen was absolutely stripped off by fantasy elements as well. The action was almost non-existent, landscape and surroundings were cheap and the world didn't have anything that makes you dig deeper into the particular universe's lore. Well... at least the chick was hot.
While the plot was based on Moby-Dick, it was stripped away from most interesting points, lowered down to some stupid cheap revenge-story and all the weight of explaining the meaning of the book was thrown at Glover's back. The old man just can't carry that much. Well, the bright side of this was the fact that the chick was hot.
What else can we tell about hour and half of my lost life? That this movie will hardly please anyone, except guys who were paid for making it.
I was going to give this movie 2 stars, instead of one, for only reason: The chick was hot... BUT... God damn it... We didn't even see her naked...
The Expendables (2010)
It is was it must be
Let me start the review by a question addressed to all the negative reviewers: WHAT THE HELL DID YOU EXPECT FROM THE MOVIE, if you see the names of Sylvester Stalone, Jason Statham, Jet Li, Dolf Lundgren, Mickey Rourke and Eric Roberts, as well as Bruce Willis and Ahnuld The Governator himself in episodic roles? Psychological drama? Comedy?
It meant to be brainless/plot less action and brainless/plot less action it IS!
It meant to has at least one crazy streetrace in it. It has. It meant to has superbly set shootout scenes with blood and all around explosions. It has. It meant to has superbly choreographed fighting sequences. It has. It meant to has at least one hot chick to be rescued. It has.
What else? WHAT is wrong than? Apparently nothing. Because it is, what it must be. Pure, 100%, Absolute ACTION!
Oh... and by the way... He wants to be president (Well... you'll get it)
It's OK but French can make it better
As a child I watched many old French comedies, which being old even in 80s and 90s, still were much fun because of legendary actors like Pierre Richard, Jean-Paul Belmondo Luis De Funes, André Bourvil etc. and typical French humor.
Watching The Extraordinary Adventures of Adèle Blanc-Sec I had the feeling that some part of what I liked most about French comedies is right there, in this movie, but I also had the feeling that time to time, humor is forced, stretched and too artificial.
Actors do a nice job. They have this typically French expressiveness and gesticulative manner of interacting. They bring the comedy more by their facial expressions than by the words they say or acts they do.
Story is unbelievable but of course can past in the film like this, the problem is, even in fantasies, where you are allowed to make up anything, you still need to justify things somehow. The film fails in that, but it doesn't loose much because of that, cause anyway... Plot is not the most interesting part about this movie.
The film was slow paced time to time and jokes were ranging from good, to very flat. Overall, I can recommend this work to all fans on light-hearted comedies. This won't be your best ever movie, but you won't say you lost part of your life wasting either.
5 stars for the mediocre film + 1 star for the joke about pyramid (near the end of the film) = 6 stars overall.
recently, I grabbed few low-budget westerns to watch on my DVD during the weekend. (I have reviewed one of them, 6 Guns, that was pretty bad, and I didn't even bother to review the second one, so awful it was) So you can guess that i didn't have high expectation for this one. Especially if you add the fact that movie is Canadian, and I didn't really know Canadians do westerns too.
Now boy, was I wrong to look at the film with a wrong eye.
From the first shots till the end, the movie proved to be fun. There was this specific Canadian humor I guess, which I understood perfectly (Being non Canadian and even non American at all), because it was delivered very well by very talented actors.
Speaking about actors. I can say for sure that for a long time I never saw such a good acting in low budget movies.
God... Russel Crowey gets millions of salary for ruining the epic legends (yeah, I mean Robin Hood parody he did), while these guys delivering much more fun gain ten times less.
Action scenes were shot well, camera work was good and lightning and the editing caused no questions.
Of course you feel all the way through the film that this is low budget, but it adds to the charm.
9 out 10...
6 Guns (2010)
Soo... What we have here. Typical low budget movie with typical western theme of revenge.
Action: You get your share of shootout, no worries about that. Though pace of the movie is slow.
Plot: 2 dimensional. Stereotypical. Nothing original.
Acting: Almost non-presented.
What we learn from the movie: 1) Sage Mears is beautiful. VERY beautiful. 2) She will never get an Oscar. NEVER. 3) To look as cool western hero, you must try to be as emotionless as possible and talk as little as possible, and never mind if time to time you look dumb because of that, instead of looking cool.
If you decide to watch this movie:
1) Ignore the plot holes. 2) Ignore all the pointless characters. 3) Lower your expectations to not be disappointed.
Quantum Apocalypse (2010)
I am the type of guy, who can watch Commando with Arnie and enjoy it, as well as watch An Andalusian Dog by Luis Bunuel and enjoy it too. I like great movies but time to time I enjoy bad ones, even the movies that are UBER-BAD, in "so bad that it's good" sense.
This one is not the case. You will actually feel the physical pain while trying to watch this thing.
Why didn't I turn off the screen after halfway through? Well, to be honest, I just HAD to know how far the idiocy can go.
Now about flaws...
1. When you have budget of 2,5 lemons, just DON'T, don't try to make another 2012 movie. (2012 was bad enough even with it's big bag budget). Effects were not only horrible in technical way, but most of them were making no sense whatsoever.
2. It's not necessary to find a star for your movie. There are lots of talented people who can act and are not stars. In fact, I like bad acting, cause It makes me laugh. But in this film, you will not see even that. Except some of the actors who OVERACT terribly, you can't find ANY acting at all.
3. Scientific background of the story: OK... how many times do I have to use the word nonsense? In fact, transsexual giraffe, trying to take over the world with the help of green cockroaches, sounds more believable than the bubble that characters use here to justify the existence of this rubbish.
4. Characters. Well, you just CAN'T swallow it. In fact I think that's where the genius of the director of this movie is hidden. It is really, really hard to create characters, more unbelievable than the ones in this movie. Movie makers just set the milestone in that direction I think.
5. Plot. Well, at least I can't say that there were many plot holes. Because, to have a plot-hole, first of all you need to have a plot. Does this film have one? NO!
Overall! Terrible, unwatchable movie!