Showing posts with label 0-9. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 0-9. Show all posts

Monday, February 11, 2013

The Wicker movies

First a bit of background story before we go into the movies. The Wicker Tree (2010) stood in my shelf for over a year before I now finally watched it. Reason for this was that once it came out I of course rushed to get it, but I decided to watch The Wicker Man (1973) before it to refresh my memories of it. That was actually a bad mistake, The Wicker Man is pretty much a perfect movie so it raised the bar so high that I knew the sequel could never live up to it. So I decided to give the sequel a better footing and put it back to the shelf to wait for a better time. Well the “better” time was now as I'm trapped at home with a nasty flu. But first a few words about the original and unfortunately the remake as well.














One of the best horror movies ever made and a movie which would most likely be in my all time top 10 list if I ever had to make one. I can't praise this movie enough, it's perfect in every aspect and especially the mood is just something unbelievable. It does what most horror movies tend to forget nowadays, it builds up tension slowly but surely until it gets scary as hell before the absolutely devastating ending. A brilliant masterpiece that can stand multiple viewings despite the easily spoilable plot.
100%

















Even though the best thing to do with this movie would be to just forget it's existence, I'll put it here as well, kind of like a warning to stay away from it. I haven't seen this since it came out so can't say how it would work today, but then again I don't want to ever watch it again. It's one of the worst remakes ever, missing every single aspect that made the original so brilliant, and all in all just a horribly bad movie.
0%
















Sequels are always hard and nearly every time fail to live up to the expectations. This however had all the things on paper that could make it good. It's written and directed by Robin Hardy, the same man who wrote and directed the original so there was a good possibility it would be something like the original. Even though I had very little expectations, mostly just hoping that it would at least be somewhat entertaining if nothing else, I was still disappointed. This continues the story of the village 37 or so years later, though it's left a bit unclear whether it actually is the same town as Summerisle was on the original as this time it's called Tressock, but it's very similar none the less. A young American gospel singing couple (Henry Garrett and Brittania Nicol) travel there to spread the word of the lord and much to their surprise they are warmly welcomed there. Well the town's folk of course have other plans for the naively simple couple and things go along similar paths as the original. The less you know the better. The story in itself was actually quite good and intriguing, but unfortunately everything around it and especially the way it was told didn't work at all. Both Garrett and Nicol were rather bad, though then again their roles were so one dimentional that even better actors might have had trouble with them. But that didn't bother much as that's the way they were supposed to be, it fit the story and gave it a bit of dark comedy as well. The real problem acting wise is the rest of the cast, they were all quite bad. Especially Graham McTavish who didn't fit the role in any way. Only one who at least tried to put some effort into it was Honeysuckle Weeks. But the acting didn't ruin the movie it's the story telling which did it. There's an attempt to a similar tension building as in the original, but this time all the attempts for dark comedy broke the tension as in the original they fit right in most of the time even helping to build the tension. And the mood from the first one was nowhere to be seen. It just proves how hard it is to recreate the incredible mood from the original when even the creator of it can't do it again. Another thing that troubled me was that the movie was quite amateurishly made, some scenes looked like they could be from some cheap soap opera. So even though the story was nice, this is in no way a good movie, rather bad actually. This probably works better as a book and Robin Hardy seems to be a better writer than a filmmaker, so I guess I'll give the book a try some day.
33%


Saturday, January 19, 2013

Cruelest form of torture













I lost a bet last year and my "payment" was to watch a movie selected by my friend. As he knows I hate Adam Sandler, he chose this movie right here and yesterday was the day to pay. Well torture wouldn't even start to describe the uneasy feeling I had throughout this movie. Not only does Adam Sandler play himself, he also plays his sister and a freaking parrot to boost. So he's in pretty much every single shot of this movie. Never before has 90 minutes gone as agonizingly slow. This was supposed to be a comedy, but I think I smiled once and cried out of pain quite a few times. What I smiled at was a scene were this adopted Indian kid hits Sandler in the face, I didn't smile at it because of slapstick comedy what it was most likely intended to be, I liked it because I thought the kid tried to slap some sense into him. I could hear him saying “You seriously think it's funny to tape stuff in me? Fuck this shit!” That was the only small pleasure between the torture, I guess you could compare it to having a small twig stuck under your fingernail that is annoying you and then having a mad torturer slowly pulling your fingernails off one by one, eventually he will get the one with the twig also. You can judge yourself whether it's worth it or not.

The biggest question this movie rises is what the hell is Al Pacino doing in this one? Why is he so desperately trying to destroy his career by taking part of something as bad as this? All I can think of is for the money. And speaking of the money, what I found most shocking was that this movie cost 79 million and it almost made it back. More entertaining movie would have been to pile up all the cash, put a picture of Adam Sandler, or just the guy himself to be honest, on top of it and light it up in fire. I'd pay to see that. However, there's something good about this movie as well, it made me think about my rating system. I have given six 0's in the past and I would rather watch any of those movies than to suffer this one again. Well except maybe for Blooded(2011) which would have to take a long and incredibly tough fight with this one to find out which was really the worst movie of 2011. And to be honest I couldn't care less, I'd be happy to share that title with both of them. As Al Pacino says at the end "Burn this. This must never be seen by anyone!" I agree with him. The movie makes us believe he was talking about his commercial, but I think he actually saw the finished movie and was commenting on that. At least I seriously hope so.
0%

Monday, January 7, 2013

Even Leatherface needs a soulmate













Attention all bad filmmakers of the world! You can relax now, no need to try any harder, the worst movie of the year is already here. And it's one fucking week into the year! I surely hope this is not an indication about the quality of this years films. Can't be arsed to go into it more than briefly so I'll just list some observations I made. The only reason they made this movie was because someone thought chainsaws look cool in 3D. The timeline is messed beyond belief, not to even mention that this movie ignores all the other parts in the series, or then this Heather is the youngest looking 40 year old I've ever seen. Down in Texas it doesn't matter if a few city folks get chopped into bits as long as it's eye for an eye as the good book says so, trust the sheriff and the mayor they know it best. Someone who has lived 20 (or 40 if you follow the timeline) years thinking she's someone else will of course turn into a homicidal maniac in a day, just because it's family and blood is thicker than water or something like that. Oh and don't you pick on Leatherface for killing all the people, all the poor boy needs is another caretaker. This movie just stinks beyond belief. The title sequence at the start made from the clips of the original looked very promising, but too bad that was the only drop of hope in this ocean of shit. I guess I should get my head examined or something as I really don't know why I keep doing this, again I knew before the movie that it simply can't be good and yet I paid almost 13 euros for this piece of garbage. I guess I hoped it might surprise me, well that it actually did, but too bad the surprise was that someone can actually make such a crappy film and get a worldwide release for it.
0%

I usually go through the other parts of the series as well, but since I haven't seen most of them in a long while and not exactly up for watching them again. Maybe I'll revisit them eventually and they'll end up here, but for now I'll just toss my feelings of them here quickly. The original TheTexas Chain Saw Massacre (1974) is a classic well worth watching and one of the better horror movies of it's kind. The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 (1986) took it a bit over the top with comedy, but I remember this being quite an entertaining movie. Leatherface: Texas Chainsaw Massacre III (1990) took the comedy out again, but wasn't exactly a great movie. TexasChainsaw Massacre The Next Generation (1994) was a horrid piece of crap and all copies of this film in any format should be burned for the good of public health. The Texas ChainsawMassacre (2003) was a surprisingly good remake. The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: TheBeginning (2006) was quite a weak attempt to create an origin story for it all.

Saturday, May 21, 2011

The filmography of Michael Bay

I was thinking which director's filmography I should go through next and at first I thought I'd take some other master of the art out of the best of the best. But then I thought it's not good to just focus on the brilliant directors as watching a masterpiece after a masterpiece tends to raise the bar too high for everyone else. So that's why I decided to take a look at Michael Bay. The man who is associated with explosive hyper active action, racist type casting without any character development and idolizing Americana. Not forgetting helicopters flying slow motion in the sunset, the light streaks and flares to spice up dull conversations or the camera that just doesn't stand still for a second. I must say I have a hate/love relationship towards the man. At best he does properly funny action movies which are very entertaining, but at the same time he has no idea how to tell a good story or build drama or characters for that matter. Even the action has been bad in his later films where it's just a CGI mess with no sense of what's going on. But I must say they are still fun, intentionally or not. His commercial and music video background shines through his movies, and that's what they basically are, a mix of commercial product placement and music video. So for what ever it's worth here's Michael Bay's filmography.



Bad Boys (1995)

His first movie actually already has everything he became famous for. There's the sunset, the low flying helicopter, no character development, product placement, light streaks and big explosions. The story is simple crap and surprisingly even Bay himself has said that he didn't like the script. But that's not the point in this movie, it's the action and the comedy. Which it has plenty of both. The chemistry between Will Smith and Martin Lawrence is quite great and they actually put up a buddy act that's one of the better ones I've ever seen. And that's the real driving force of this movie, without it this would be just another crappy B-action flick. Speaking about the action, it's nice to see that at start Bay didn't have his hyper active shooting style and the action actually makes sense on screen. So yes the action worked quite well also. What didn't work in addition to the thin story was the character development. Or the lack of it, there is absolutely none. Luckily the characters are so strong to begin with that you really don't need it that much, but that did leave the characters way too one dimentional to bring any drama into the action. The main duo is certainly great and Joe Pantoliano and Tcheky Karyo were quite ok as well. But the damsel in distress, Tea Leoni, was completely useless, her role was basically to look good. It's actually hilarious in the end where she's inserted in all those slow motion shots where the two cops walk with their guns drawn. Just what's her purpose there? Well that gave me laughs, even though I guess it wasn't intended that way. Despite it's quite serious flaws, it's still an entertaining and especially fun action movie. So it does what it's supposed to do even though it doesn't give you anything extra.
66%



The Rock (1996)

Say what you will but this is one of the best action movies ever made. Having said that, this movie is also the movie where Bay first introduced his frantic editing style with most of the shots not more than 2 seconds long and rarely visiting the same angle twice. Something I've later started to hate from the bottom of my heart. But for some reason this is one of the very few movies where it actually doesn't matter at all. This movie is just tons of fun. The overly cheesy patriotism of USA turns into comedy and supports the movie as an extra comic punch very nicely. And believe it or not I really like the story behind all the explosions. I don't mean the story of a lab rat and an old fart fighting a team of highly trained marines, that's pure comedy, but the driving force behind the characters. The bad guy is actually a good guy with a noble cause but with bad means for it, the old Brittish agent wrongfully imprisoned for most of his life and even the lab rat were all genuinely interesting characters. Something you can rarely say in a movie like this. The casting is one of the best of it's kind, Ed Harris, Sean Connery, David Morse and even Nicolas Cage back in the days when he at least still tried to put some effort into acting. Add to those the old legends like John Spencer and Philip Baker Hall and of course my favourite hero actor from the 80's, Michael Biehn, and you have a stellar casting. Another thing that I absolutely love about this movie is the soundtrack, Hans Zimmer's best by far and one of the best I've ever heard. Pure brilliance every note of it. The movie has some idiotic moments that are not saved even by the comedy, but to tell you the truth I can't remember them even though I've seen this movie about 10 times already. That's saying something about the entertainment values. And even though this movie kind of populised the highly annoying fast cutting in action movies, I still can't stop liking this movie, it just works.
98%



Armageddon (1998)

So after making one of the best action movies of the 90's, Bay decided to make a movie about rednecks saving the world. I could write a novel on how hideously horrible this movie is, but to be honest it stinks so much that I don't want to waste my time and energy on it too much. First of all the whole concept of the movie that astronauts, some of the world's smartest and most technically trained men, couldn't drill one god damn hole in the ground is just silly beyond belief. But no, rednecks are the guys who can drill anything, drilling holes is an art after all, so they rather send them in space. The rednecks are of course stereotypes with no depth at all to them, you have your over protective father, reckless hero type, a cowboy, a divorced father with a gambling problem, a sex addict, a dumb fatso who lives with his mother and a big black man right from the days of slavery. It actually made me angry how insulting this movie is towards people, if Bay's world would be the world we live in, then please just let the asteroid wipe us all out. And it's just not the rednecks and the racism towards black people and rednecks themselves, the Russian cosmonaut was just as appalling. It says a lot about the movie that Billy Bob Thornton, a great actor but quite characterized as a redneck, is cast as the director of NASA. Fuck yeh! Ok, so the characters are horrible and even though there are some good actors in this most of the cast is horrible as well. Though at most parts I blame the script and the direction, not the cast. Of course Ben Affleck is hopeless no matter what, but for example I have never seen Steve Buscemi giving out a worse performance. He's a fucking character actor, usually playing himself, so that has to be an achievement. And when I say the script is bad I mean it stinks so bad it makes dog shit smell like roses. Just one example, the pilot pulls a gun on Harry and Chick says "What are you doing with a gun in space?". Nothing wrong with that except that they have freaking miniguns on their spacebuggythingies. Oops, guess they forgot... Well it's just one example out of hundreds, but as I said I'm not going to waste more time on this shit. It's one of the worst movies I've ever seen and actually now seeing it for the second time it borders on being brilliant as it really is so bad that it becomes funny. But I'm not going to give it that honour just yet. Though one thing I must still mention, for some weird reason this movie is in The Criterion Collection, a collection of historically important movies from around the world. The Rock (1996) is in there also from Michael Bay and that I can understand why as it really is one of the best action movies, but why this movie is in there I have no idea. Maybe those people at Criterion have a very twisted sense of humour or something.
1%



Pearl Harbor (2001)

Ok, this movie is supposed to be some kind of a big homage to the soldiers of the war and the people involved with it. I saw an overly long cheesy piece of crap that does nothing even remotely like that. It's just about the same as if Bay would have taken a dump on the entombed U.S.S. Arizona. The thing is that the only sympathetic characters in this movie are the Japanese, now I must say I was surprised that they weren't depicted as monsters and for that I have to give it some credit. But really everyone else seems to be one dimentional obnoxious idiots. Anyway, the movie starts off with a quick buddy establishment, we are given glimpses of the past to make us belive that Ben Affleck and Josh Hartnett are good friends. Well I kind of missed that part which should bind them together, at a later point it didn't matter much as they are supposed to be mad at eachother, but then they are supposed to be buddies again and it just doesn't work. The buddy bit just a small problem compared to the "romance" that is what I would imagine a 12 year old girl might write in her diary. And we have to endure this torture for the next hour or so. I can see that they are trying to go for the 40's romantic movies with that, but really why would someone even try to do that? The modern audience expects a bit more depth to the romance than they did back then. The concept of a romance hasn't changed one bit since then, but the way people buy it surely has, so I just have to wonder what the hell were they thinking with this horse shit. So then the bombs start to fall and all hell breaks lose. Luckily the sound effects were loud enough so people who fell asleep in the first hour and a half should wake up by now. But what we get is not a dramatic recreation of the attack, there's certainly no drama in it, hell there's no feeling at all. It's nothing but an explosive war masturbation by Bay. I can imagine him getting all excited like a little kid about all the shit he can blow up while making it look as "cool" as he can. What's "cool" about an attack that killed more than 3000 people? Well unfortunately after the overly long action sequence the movie isn't over and we have to endure an hour more of this utter garbage. There of course needs to be a payback from the attack so the movie can end with an up note, not that there was any tragedy in the attack in this movie in the first place, but lets just imagine there would have been for good sport. Well the two "buddies" are supposed to bind together again, but again I missed it. Was it after they beat eachother up and woke up in the car? Was it while they were killing the Japanese in the air? Was it when they got recruited for the secret mission? Or was it when Doolittle asked them if everything was ok? I mean come on, the viewer has already lost every bit of interest to these characters at this point so why even bother going further. Well they bomb some Japanese factory, Hartnett gets killed, Affleck gets the girl and USA kicks ass, woo-fucking-hoo. They conviniently "forgot" to mention the real reason why Japan surrendered, the two a-bombs. But then again as that would make the audience see how the mighty US of A answered a sucker punch with quite an inhumane act of monstrosity and you can't have that in a movie about heroes. Saddest thing of it all is that the total amount of money spent on production and promotion of this movie roughly equaled the amount of damage caused in the actual attack. They would have made a better homage by spending that money on the veterans themselves and some new history books for the schools.
2%



Bad Boys II (2003)

Bay takes another swing at the Bad Boys and of course the budget is now a lot bigger so there's tons more of everything. After the last two monstrosities this movie actually feels like a breath of fresh air and seeing it right after Pearl Harbor (2001) it feels like a masterpiece. But it's certainly not a masterpiece, it's just an ok action flick. So how does it compare to the first part? Surprisingly well actually. The chemistry between Will Smith and Martin Lawrence is still there, even though it not as funny as it was in the first part. They are clearly trying too hard at parts and it goes a bit overboard, but they still have their moments and give out plenty of laughs. The story was still crap, but maybe a tad better than the first part. Not like anyone would have expected a realistic take on things anyways so it doesn't matter that much. I didn't like the main villain, played by Jordi Molla, he was lacking charisma needed for the part and thus it was kind of a miss. Rest of the cast is quite ok with some familiar faces from the first part. Even though it can't top the first part in the buddy act, the action in this one is so over the top that it's crazy. There's three huge car chases all well worth mentioning. The first one with the car transport truck is quite great with all of it's carnage. The second one is brilliant in it's macabre dark comedy with all the bodies flying around. But the third one is just insane with the Hummer crashing into everything in it's path. Total destruction and that's what I liked about this. Michael Bay likes to blow shit up and call me crazy but I enjoy watching that money burn. So this is a good sequel and even better than the first part, but still it's lacking in too many other departments except action, so it's nowhere near as good as The Rock (1996). The saddest thing is that after this movie the big budget R-rated movies pretty much died. Well they didn't die, but only a very few were made since. Which is a shame of course.
69%



The Island (2005)

After the explosive violent and surprisingly brutal fun ride Bay went back to the more easy going action. This is a story about a man and a woman who find out they are clones, made only to act as spare parts for the people who ordered them. The company which breeds the clones assures the public that the clones are vegetables without any feelings, but yet they must raise them as "normal" humans because of some nonsense about the parts not working if the person is kept sedated. The two clones escape and set on a mission to uncover the whole business of cloning people for medical purposes. I actually liked the story quite a bit, the moral dilemma of taking "spare parts" from a copy of yourself to extend your own life. Also the vanity of mankind that a woman would buy a copy of herself to give birth to a baby so she could keep her form. But that whole cloning dilemma isn't really a new idea and actually it was ripped straight from The Clonus Horror (1979). Now this movie is actually better than The Clonus Horror (1979), but as this movie doesn't mention any connection to it, it's basically the same as a stealing the idea which kind of watered it down. Anyway into the nice idea there's inserted this absolutely ridiculous action adventure plot that is just too silly to keep the interest up. Sure there's tons of action and explosions, it's Michael Bay after all, but I really got just bored watching it as there was no feeling to it. Ewan McGregor and Scarlett Johansson try to do their best with the crappy dialog they are given and do a fairly ok job regarding the script. Rest of the cast were quite disposable. The ultra fast editing gets very boring and the movie looks like a Michael Bay movie looks, tons of light streaks, overly saturated contrasty imagery and the camera doesn't stay put for long. Quite a waste of time and money.
23%



Transformers (2007)

I loved Transformers as a kid in the 80's. I had pretty much all of the toys and the cartoon show was the high point of the week. Then of course I grew up and got other interests so Transformers was left behind. Even though I knew I wouldn't be the target group of this movie anymore, I still wanted to see it. My expectations for it were very low, mostly because of Michael Bay. And surely enough it wasn't a good movie, but much to my surprise it wasn't a bad one either. This is a movie I would have loved to death when I was 10, it has everything I loved in movies back then. But now as it takes a bit more than explosive action to get my attention I saw a bit too many things I didn't like. First of all this movie is racist. I mean if a guy like me who is whiter than white from a country like Finland can see that, then there really has to be something wrong with it. All the black people in this movie are portrayed as one dimentional stereotypes who are there just for entertainment values for the white folk so they can feel better about themselves. Even the robot, Jazz, that's clearly another black stereotype is the only one to be killed. Only black person who doesn't seem to be type cast is the soldier with the credit card, though his character's biggest moment is screaming "left cheek!" over and over again after which he disappears. Not exactly a world image you want to give to your children. That being said I still liked Bernie Mac as the used car salesman, he was simply hilarious. And in general the comedy in the movie was actually quite good. John Turturro's character was also hilarious and he did a great job with the part. Shia LaBeouf was also a nice surprise and pulled off the hero role quite well. Which can't be said about Megan Fox, sure she looks great but can't act at all. Also Jon Voight was quite bland, though the dialog given to the character wasn't helping the part one bit. Then the main thing, the robots. Well I think they looked somewhat ok. I mean I would have hoped for a bit cleaner versions of them, now they just had too much going on in details that it was hard to make sense of them. But that being said they did look a lot more realistic than the smooth cartoon or toy versions. The reason why I would have hoped for a bit cleaner versions is that they are never really introduced apart from Bumblebee and Optimus Prime. Now they just tend to blend in with each other and it makes it sometimes hard to tell them apart. And that's where one of the major problems of the movie lies, the way the action is shot. It's just one big CGI mess. There's tons of stuff going on and it's shot with a hyper active shooting style, that results in a total chaos which makes absolutely no sense at all. Sure the kids might like it, but the thing is when you have no idea who hits who and where, you really lose interest and just watch the fireworks without any idea of what you are supposed to see. And what's up with the Autobots, am I the only one who thinks everyone else but Optimus Prime were completely useless? Sure they shoot, do flips and set up a show, but mostly they just got their asses kicked while Optimus was the only one who managed to actually kill the Decepticons. This movie also features one of the most annoying characters I've ever seen, right up there with Jar Jar Binks, that little robot that just doesn't seem to die. So there are huge problems with the movie, but still I didn't get bored and had some fun with it. It even managed to raise the little kid in me as I almost cheered when we see Optimus Prime for the first time. But unfortunately in the end it's still a bad movie with some quite good moments.
42%



Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (2009)

Didn't see this one when it came out, but decided to watch it now as I'm going through Michael Bay's filmography. Being a sequel to a big action movie it of course tries to top it by being even bigger. There's more robots, more army, more action, more explosions, more goofy characters, more product placement and more "Bayhem". And of course the robots are bigger, the army has bigger weapons, the explosions are bigger and the goofy characters of course are a bigger nuisance. But the movie just doesn't go bigger, it also goes smaller with tons of smaller little robot critters which are there to show how diverse their race is or some other nonsense like that. Just as I had declared that little robot in the first one as one of the most annoying characters in the history of movies, this one goes better. There's actually 3 robots that all are way more annoying than the one in the first part. There's the "twins", two robots that make you want to go and get a can of gasoline so you can burn yourself from the misery of watching them. And for fucks sake they even have goofy teeth, one with a golden tooth for that matter, what the hell does a robot do with teeth anyways? That little toy car robot is no better, even worse actually, but luckily it spends quite a bit of time in a box so we don't have to watch it. Apart from those the new robots seemed quite ok, even that old fart Jetfire who was also idiotically stereotyped, but at least he didn't make me want to go on a killing frenzy. But as before it really doesn't matter much how good the new robots were as you don't really see them, only glimpses of them spinning around while fighting. So the annoying CGI mess action continues right where it left on the first part and is actually even worse on this one. Most of the time I had no idea what was going on when shit blew up and CGI mess was spinning on the screen. I'm not a young kid with ADHD so I can't keep up with this lightning cutting pace. Then again if it was a bit slower and smoother it would bring out all the mistakes and inconsistencies of the action, so I kind of understand why they use it. But instead of covering up the mistakes, maybe they could have just properly planned them and shot them in a way that they would look good. That's Michael Bay's worst problem (well in addition of being a racist and sexist and all the other stuff), he just can't direct action. I actually watched the extras of the blu-ray i rented and there was a big segment on this huge explosion that made the Guiness book of records as the biggest explosion ever shot with live actors next to it. In the movie it's nothing special, you've watched non stop effect assault for the last 30 minutes with a hideous fast pace cutting. So when this big bang comes it looks like a nice breath of some easy action, not spectacular or huge or anything like that, only that it's nice that we actually get to watch a shot more than 2 seconds. On the extras however it looks absolutely brilliant, but in the movie it's simply lost in the "Bayhem". Not going to go into the story, it's what it is, not like you could write anything about the meaning of life in a movie about transforming robots so lets leave it to what it is, entertainment. The cast is the same and those who were good on the first one are good here as well and Megan Fox didn't learn how to act in the two years in between so nothing has changed. I must mention the huge amount of mistakes there are in the movie. It clearly was rushed to get finished as you see the cameraman's shadow on multiple occasions and that one slow motion explosion where Megan Fox goes transparent is just something hideous. Also many of the effect shots are very poor. For example when the Devastator is digging up the machine from the pyramid, the falling "stones" look like something I could do better on my own computer. I would love to bash this movie to the ground for the horrible piece of garbage it is with all of it's product placements and formulaic exploitative nature. But I still found it to be somewhat entertaining, however a good movie it surely isn't.
30%


After watching all of the Bay movies again I must say I'm more on the hate side, despite him making one of the best action movies of the 90's and two fairly good action flicks. The thing is that the shit he has also poured out smells so bad it tarnishes the glory of those few good ones. Well anyway that's something to think about when Transformers: Dark of the Moon (2011) comes out. I'm not going to see it in the theatre as I'm planning on keeping my promise of not watching any sequel/prequel/comicbook/cartoon/toy/remake/etc. movies in the theatre this year.

Sunday, May 1, 2011

The Haapsalu Horror & Fantasy Film Festival



I had heard quite a bit of good things about this festival so I decided to check it out this year. Unfortunately I arrived a bit late so I missed the first movie Amphibious (2010), but to be honest I didn't really mind missing it as it didn't sound too promising, but as always who knows it might have surprised me. Anyway here's my reviews from the ones I did see in mids of drinking the cheap beer when ever I could.



Subconscious Cruelty (2000)

I chose this one because I hadn't seen it before, though the Norwegian movie running at the same time, Dark Souls (2010), did sound promising also. But as this has somewhat of a cult status already I decided to patch a hole in my general knowledge. Well turned out I shouldn't have done that. This movie is just boring self indulgent garbage with nothing but shock and gore effects to offer. It tries to be an art horror film, but really didn't see any art in it. It's just gorno with annoying audio-visual effects that make your eyes and ears hurt. It has four stories of quite macabre nature which are supposed to be sort of an insight to the human mind, but really they made absolutely no sense to me. Fans of surrealistic shock effects and maybe some perverts might get something out of this, but I just found it complete waste of time.
5%



Red White & Blue (2010)

I knew absolutely nothing about this movie before I went to watch it, hadn't even seen a poster, just a name in the catalog. So I had no idea what to expect, except horror as this was a horror festival after all. Well half way to the movie I hadn't seen a bit of horror, not even a hint of a thriller. Only a gritty dirty drama about a woman whose life spins around bars, bad jobs and having sex with pretty much every man he comes across. Then it moves to tell a story of a struggling musician whose mother is fighting cancer and whose band is looking for a break. But after an hour or so the movie takes a drastic turn into a very brutal revenge thriller that reminded me of The Last House on the Left (1972), but with different motives of course. Actually I quite liked the story as it's not as black and white on who are the bad guys and who are innocent victims. Kind of like all of them are bad in their own way and yet you tend to feel sorry for all of them as well. So it's definitely a tragic story and surely enough it doesn't hold back anything. It's made quite cheap and there are some mistakes in it, but it also kind of adds to the gritty feel of it as well. Amanda Fuller does a great job as Erica, the troubled woman and Noah Taylor is quite brilliant also. Rest of the cast are not exactly great and there are some awkward moments of bad acting, but they manage to get the point through. The way the movie is made with three parts might not have been the best idea as you tend to lose interest on trying to figure out what's the point and even though you surely get it towards the end, maybe a bit of better pacing should have been used. Despite it's flaws I liked the story and how diverse the characters and their motives were so it was well worth watching.
74%



The Pack (2010)

Had already seen this before so I didn't watch it at the festival, but I'll put the review here as I haven't done it before. This was quite an uneven French horror movie. It started out very well as a weird somewhat comic horror movie, but ended up being just another meaningless horror movie with very little to offer. It felt like the makers of this just piled up all the crap from other horror movies and made a sort of a left over soup of them. I mean I constantly had a feeling I've seen all this before somewhere and as there was nothing new added to it I got quite bored. Even though it's only 90 minutes it still felt too long for the thin story it had. Sure the movie looked ok and the cast was somewhat ok, but still not enough to keep the interest up. The biggest problem in addition to the idea recycling was the character development, or the lack of it. I just didn't feel anything for the characters and thus it failed to be scary at any point. Bit more originality and stronger characters and this would have worked somewhat ok, but now it just doesn't.
34%



Julia's Eyes (2010)

This was another movie I was looking forward to as it looked quite stunning on the trailer I saw. And sure enough it did look stunning, but despite the looks it did have many flaws. Julia (Belen Rueda) is losing her sight and awaiting for surgery that might save her eyes. Her sister is found dead and while everyone else thinks it was a suicide, Julia is convinced that she was murdered. She starts investigating what happened to her sister and soon finds herself being stalked by the same person she thinks killed her sister. The first hour or so of the movie is actually very good, the mood is great and the look of it supports it brilliantly. There's even some proper tension building and it's truly scary at parts. Also the giallo references surely didn't hurt it. But unfortunately towards the end it turns into a bad movie where I just kept thinking how stupid can the woman be? The dialog at the start which was quite good turns into pretty much idiotic babble and you just sit there hoping for it to end. Too bad it drags on and on way too long and waters down all the brilliant stuff in the beginning. With a less idiotic script this would have been a good movie, but now it's just barely average, despite the good start.
50%


Next one was Beyond the Black Rainbow (2011) which looked quite great in it's 80's style but unfortunately I fell asleep after the start. Not that the movie was especially boring, it actually looked quite interesting, but I guess I'm getting old for these fests. I mean the movie didn't make much sense at the start and the pace was slow but I kind of liked it as far as I saw it none the less so I'll just blame me getting old. I'll make sure to watch it when ever I get another chance.



The House of the Devil (2009)

I had already seen this one before on DVD, but as the movie looks brilliant I didn't want to miss a chance to see it on the big screen. Stayed wide awake through this one without any problems. This is an homage to the 80's and late 70's horror movies and sure enough it actually looks like a long lost 80's horror classic. Everything in the movie looks brilliant, the settings, the props, the costumes and the style are all spot on perfect. It's shot on 16mm film so even the picture is oozing with that 80's wibe. Add to that the 80's soundtrack and it's style is complete. The storytelling is also straight from those slow burning horror movies which take their time but will surely scare the shit out of you. It's a story about a young woman who answers to a babysitter wanted ad and ends up in a creepy old house sitting an old lady. The first hour of this movie is absolutely brilliant with pretty much perfect tension building and some truly scary scenes. But unfortunately it falls apart quite badly towards the end and takes too many common routes to keep it interesting. Even the brilliant suspension is replaced with shock effects and the ending leaves a bit too hollow feeling. That being said this is still a good movie, at times it's actually brilliant, but the rushed ending leaves a bit of a bad taste of it.
72%


At this point I saw The Troll Hunter (2010) again and I'm glad to say it worked very well on the second viewing also. Next one would have been Stake Land (2010), but I decided to skip it and went to see the town a bit and grab some fresh air.



Hobo with a Shotgun (2011)

Well this movie was the movie for which I went to Estonia in the first place. Didn't want to miss the chance of seeing it on the big screen, even though I had my doubts wether it would actually be any good. Well it was good, but not brilliant. This is an homage to the over the top vigilante movies of the 80's and I bet the fans of those will get the most out of this one. Rutger Hauer plays a hobo who arrives to a city over run by pretty much the scum of the earth. Soon he has to ditch his dreams of bying a lawn mower and he decides to buy a shotgun instead to clean up the streets. Silly story but so is the movie. Well silly is not the right word, even over the top is kind of an under statement, this movie is ridiculously insane. It's fast paced and filled with action so you certainly won't get bored, but actually I was hoping a bit more originality to it. Sure there are tons of great stuff in it and some of them seem quite fresh but I just had that feeling that I've already seen this before. But then again as it's brainless violent entertainment with a take no prisoners attitude, it didn't matter that much in the end. Rutger Hauer is the show here and it's really nice to see him doing a big performance again, not that it would be the best of his career but still a good one. Rest of the cast is barely ok, mostly over acting which somewhat fits the story, but nothing to rave about. This was probably the bloodiest of the movies on the festival, so I guess that's somewhat of a merit also. Anyway I quite enjoyed this one, even though it didn't leave much to go home with.
79%



Hatchet II (2010)

Haven't seen the first part so I was a bit worried about going to check this out. I mean even though some sequels can work better if you don't have the expectations set by the first part, but still I believe movies should be watched in the order they were intended. Never the less I went to see this as there wasn't anything else running at the time. At start I was a bit worried as the movie seemed to continue right where the first part left off, but luckily the situation was explained and I caught on to the story quite fast. Then again I can imagine if you'd already seen the first one this explaining would seem quite stupid to you. Won't go into the story that much as it's quite thin and every bit of it is borrowed from other slasher movies, they return to the swamp to find Marybeth's friends and of course everyone gets killed again. But the story here is not the point, it's the absolutely ridiculous amount of gore and the hilarious way it's portrayed. This is a dark comedy and fans of the slasher movies will surely get the most out of it. And I'm sure happy it turned out to be a comedy as I really couldn't stop laughing at the makeup of Marybeth (Danielle Harris) at the beginning. She has a cut on the top of left side of her face which keeps her left eyebrow up all the time, so she has this wacky look on all the time that reminded me of the eyebrow joke in Just Go with It (2011). If it was intentional, that's just brilliant and if not, well that's even better. The kills are so brilliantly over the top that I had a blast watching this one. I think this movie will hold the record of longest hand weilded chainsaw in the movie history and one of the funniest usages of it. This movie is for horror fans that aren't too up tight about their genre and can have a laugh at it also. So I liked it and I will surely be checking out Hatchet (2006) as well.
70%



Norwegian Ninja (2010)

Even though I already have this on DVD I didn't watch it and waited to see it on the big screen. I loved the trailer and the movie sounded so crazy that it really can't be that bad. Well I have to say I was a bit disappointed, guess I was expecting a bit too much. It seemed like a fun made to be b-movie that kicks ass, but it wasn't that fun and it didn't really kick ass, but a b-movie it was for sure. Most of the comedy came from how goofy the tricks were and sure as a movie geek I liked them a lot, but not really enough to keep me entertained through the whole movie. The story itself also had some comedy of course, some of the times so bad it was actually funny, but to be honest most of the time it was just bad. Also there was surprisingly little action, you pretty much see all the fight scenes in the trailer and even most of those were a bit disappointing. Sure the alternate history of Norway's most famous traitor was suiting plot line for a crazy movie like this, but to someone not that familiar with the real subject I guess I missed quite a few of the points the story might have had. It's a shame it failed to deliver as I liked the concept of it, i loved the crazy ninja movies back in the 80's. So in the end it's a well made bad movie with very little comedy and action.
47%


There were still two movies after that, Atrocious (2010) and The Catechism Cataclysm (2011), but as my ride was leaving I had to skip them. Anyway, this was a very nice festival and I'll surely be participating next year as well.

Sunday, April 17, 2011

Worst movie of the year, no contest


Blooded (2011)

I read the synopsis and thought this sounds like an interesting thriller. I'll just quote the full synopsis here. "In October 2005, five young people were kidnapped in the Highlands of Scotland. Stripped and abandoned in the the wilderness, they were forced into a deadly game where the hunters became the hunted. Their ordeal was filmed by an extreme animal rights group as a warning to others: if you hunt... you're fair game. Combining dramatic reconstruction and compelling interviews with the survivors, BLOODED finally tells the full story behind one of the most extreme internet virals of modern times." What I actually got was simply a horrible excuse of a movie. I had to split the viewing into two parts, even though it's only 80 minutes. After the first 30 minutes absolutely nothing had happened except for some weak effort of character building without characters. Had to stop it there, but next day I decided to finish it just in case it only had a bad start and would redeem itself in the end. No chance of that. First of all it's quite amateurishly made, bad acting, horrible scripting with very uninteresting characters and absolutely no sense of pacing. Second of all there is no thriller, not one bit. I mean which retard actually thinks that the viewer might get scared for the protagonist when you intercut the "hunt" with the protagonist casually talking about the events while it happens. Guess he didn't know that a movie actually needs to be thrilling in order for it to work as a thriller, having a guy run away from hunters with dramatic music while someone is constantly telling the viewer it will be ok is quite far from thrilling. I have no idea what the "statement" of this movie is, I mean it surely tries to tell us something, but the closest I can guess is that hunting foxes is bad, but hunting humans is worse. Well no shit Sherlock. Somebody give this guy the Nobel prize, we clearly have the next philosophical genious amongst us! Idiotic pointless waste of time garbage with highly misleading marketing. I want my 4 euros back and more importantly I want my 80 minutes back.
0%

Tuesday, April 5, 2011

Not so mean and utterly boring mother


Mean Mother (1974)

Was looking into some blacksploitation movies and stumbled into this. As I couldn't find much info about it I decided to take the chance and ordered the DVD as it was relatively cheap. Turned out to be a bad idea. I must say this is the worst blacksploitation movie I've ever seen, most likely the worst exploitation film of any kind for that matter. It's so bad that it's almost funny, but not quite as it still just stays on the bad side. It's utterly boring, the "acting" is horrible, it's badly made and even the music sucked. There are a few scenes that made me smile, like the white men with a bit of brown face paint playing Vietnamese soldiers in a typical western countryside, trying to pass as the Vietnam War. Despite those couple of hilarious bits and one very nice set of boobs, I really can't recommend this for anyone. Not for blacksploitation fans, not for trash fans and certainly not for anyone who has even a half of a brain cell in their head.
3%

Sunday, October 10, 2010

A whole lot of Predators


Predators (2010)

Well right from the start I have to say that this is the best sequel to the original. But it's still not even close to being as good as the original. First of all the cast is a bit off, I mean Adrien Brody, a very good actor but a mercenary no way, he just has that accountant look to him that doesn't suit the role. Laurence Fishburne was also a big miss and I almost laughed when he was telling his background, certainly not a good choice. The rest were kind of ok, though I would have hoped for a bit more bad ass characters and the most bad ass of them all gets killed first. So kind of a miss on that department. The story was actually surprisingly good, given that it imitates the first part quite often, but still best out of the other "sequels". The "twist" with one of the characters was quite predictable, but I guess it was kind of meant that way. The action was plenty and entertaining, though there is a bit of over explaining and stupid dialog to get the slowest of viewers into it. The setting looked nice and the "upgrades" the Predators had were slight enough for the true fans. In the end you're left with a barely ok sequel and promises of more to come. In a way I wanted to like it more as it has so many things right, but still it feels a bit pointless.
61%

And here's a quick look at the other Predators.



Predator (1987)

Well what can I say? One of my all time favourite sci-fi action movies and a true classic in it's genre. Macho power from here and out there. Simply perfect.
99%



Predator 2 (1990)

Took the Predator to an urban setting and made it more like an action figure with tons of gadgets. Story had a bit too much going on and didn't really get the most of the juicy surroundings. Certainly not the worst sequel ever made but far behind the power of the original.
58%



AVP: Alien vs. Predator (2004)

Ok so you have one of the best sci-fi action movies and one of the best sci-fi horror movies, put them together and what do you get? A total butt rape of both franchises apparently. This movie fails to deliver on every aspect and really makes me wish it would have never been made. Some points for Lance Henriksen and the few nods towards the originals.
12%



AVPR: Aliens vs Predator - Requiem (2007)

So after a horrible crossover they decided to make another. Needless to say it was even worse...
1%

Friday, October 8, 2010

Masters of Horror season 1


I know this is a TV series and I don't put TV series here, but as each episode is a short movie by itself I'll review them here. Idea of this series is that Anchor Bay has gathered some of the greatest horror movie makers together to make one hour long short movies. The selection varies from poor to very good. Finally had the time to watch them, so here's season one.


Incident on and Off a Mountain Road (2005)

Movie starts off as a quite basic slasher, but towards the end gets some twists to mix it up. Didn't like the flashbacks at start, they were just plain stupid, but as they tell a story of their own which influences the outcome, they were kinda needed. The first half with a survival battle in the woods was quite bad though there were some unintentionally funny moments which kept it entertaining. Towards the end it took a better turn and the twist wasn't that bad either. All in all quite ok movie.
60%


Dreams in the Witch-House (2005)

I like the Lovecraft story but this movie wasn't doing it much justice. There were some ok scenes, but not enough to carry the whole movie. Acting was quite bad and some scenes were just stupid. The man-rat was stupidly goofy and the witch wasn't exactly scary either. In the end not very good film with very little to offer.
20%


Dance of the Dead (2005)

This post apocalyptic vision by Tobe Hooper was surprisingly good, especially knowing what kind of crap the guy has made since the late 80's. Liked many of the ideas in this and it was nicely done. Too bad that towards the end all the momentum it had made falls into the corny plot. Worth the watch and one of the better ones he has made in the last 20 years.
70%


Jenifer (2005)

Dario Argento was at one point one of the best horror movie makers in the world, but has since faded in the vast nothingness. So my hopes were definitely not high for this one. And unfortunately it was pretty much what I feared. The story was ok, though the way the motives were brought up very poor. Rest was below average, even bad at points.
29%


Chocolate (2005)

Kind of an ok movie but with a lot of plot holes. I got the feeling that this story would have worked way better as a book and not a short movie as it rushes things a bit too much.
52%


Homecoming (2005)

Quite a nice film with a very different take on zombies. I can imagine this movie had even a stronger impact when Bush was the president. Still somewhat fresh movie worth watching.
80%


Deer Woman (2005)

The idea is just stupid, but it's more of a horror comedy anyways so it works quite well. This was surprisingly badly made, there were tons of little errors and those weird moments where the editing and dialog didn't really match. Also those crossfaded images were just plain crappy, could have worked in the 70's but not today. But still didn't get bored and it had it's moments. The lady was quite nice.
43%


Cigarette Burns (2005)

John Carpenter's best movie in over 20 years. Though that's not really anything special as he has put out some crappy films lately. Anyways this was a nice surprise and good to see that he can still do it when the story is right. Sure there were some bad scenes and the acting was sub par, but in the end it was entertaining and at points even quite chilling.
78%


The Fair Haired Child (2006)

This was surprisingly good. The demon kid was actually quite well made and looked freaky enough to be scary. The story was nothing special, but it kept me interested well enough. Worth the watch.
66%


Sick Girl (2006)

The leading lady in this one couldn't act at all, really a horrible performance. The story was kinda ok at parts, but the creatures were a bit too goofy to be scary. Nice ending though.
46%


Pick Me Up (2006)

This was total garbage. Bad acting, bad story, bad film. Though at some points it almost was bad enough to be good, but not quite.
2%


Haeckel's Tale (2006)

Clive Barker's story and the director of Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer (1986) sounds good on paper. Well the movie wasn't bad either. Kind of predictable at parts, but the undead love was kind of a nice what the fuck moment.
58%


Imprint (2006)

Takashi Miike is a guarantee for something absurdly disturbing, so this wasn't a big surprise even though there were scenes that were really strong. One of the better from the series and totally in a different world than the rest. Well worth watching.
79%


All in all a very mixed series. Some of the movies were idiotic crap and some actually very good. As a whole it still kind of left a bad taste in the mouth. Is this really the best these "masters" of horror could do?

Saturday, October 4, 2008

Twice the funny games

Well I just watched Funny Games U.S. and for an obvious reason I have to put both versions up here, so lets start with the original.



Funny Games (1997)

This is Michael Haneke's crown jewel so to say, at least by his own words. A movie that is closest to the themes of A Clockwork Orange out of all the movies that try to capture it's feel. It's a story of an upper class family's nightmare when two young men take the family hostage and put them through a sadistical, violent ordeal. This movie is disturbing, brutal, freaky and not in the entertaining way. It's a statement against the violence in entertainment and how it blurs the viewers mind. When people are offered everything, nothing is enough. Just for the basic message it's a movie worth watching. But there's a bit more to it than that, it's also quite brilliantly made. The cast is superb and hadle their hard roles really well. Especially the mother played by Susanne Lothar makes a striking performance. Some scenes are pure perfection with long uncomfortable takes without release. Also the idea of not showing the violence but letting the viewer hear what's happening is so brutal it's scary. Again proves the point what you can't see is worse than what you can. This is a kind of movie you watch once and never go back to it as it's going to loose it's effect after the first viewing.
85%



Funny Games U.S. (2007)
Haneke did a remake of the original for the American market. And I have to wonder why? It's the same movie from scene to scene only the actors are English and American and the dog is a different breed. He didn't change anything from the original. In a way I understand it, if the original is perfect what's there to improve and since it's the same director of course he's not going to change anything as he himsef has said it's his best work. That raises the question why make a remake then if it's going to be exactly the same movie? Only thing I can think of is to take the money from the average illiterate American. And that is not a good thing. Don't get me wrong it's not worse than the original, it's the same with pretty much every detail. It's still as effective, shocking and brutal, with the same statement. Also the cast, especially Naomi Watts, make stellar performances. But there's just no need for this remake and even if Haneke had the good intentions to bring his work to a broader audience, it feels like he's pissing in the eye of the original fans. I honestly can't decide how to rate this one, easiest would be to give it 0 since it's completely unnecessary movie for me personally and it has that "let's take the money away from people" feeling. But as it is in the end the same as the original, meaning a very good movie, I should go for 85 percent here too. Oh well I guess I won't let commercialism win. If you're American and can't read subtitles, watch this movie, everyone else watch the original.
0%

Wednesday, October 1, 2008

All about Batman


The Dark Knight (2008)

This movie was hyped to the point it became ridiculous, I mean in the end no movie can live up to the praises this movie got. So I was a bit scared to go and see it as I already knew my expectations were too high. Well it turned out it really was a brilliant movie. Not only is it probably the best super hero movie ever made, it's also one of the best action movies ever made and all together quite brilliant piece of work. But it surely isn't the best movie ever made, it's "just" a great movie. First the most notable, Heath Ledger as Joker. All those people who say that the hype about his performance wouldn't have been so big had he not died haven't seen this movie. It's truly one of the best performances I've seen in a while. Of course the character is brilliantly written and he's given enough time to build the character, but still his performance is simply perfect. The rest of the all-star cast do their parts really well too, thou they of course get shadowed by Ledger's performance. Didn't really understand why did Batman have to speak like a death metal band singer, it sounded a bit corny at times. But other than that Christian Bale did a great performance as well. Also very notable was Aaron Eckhart's performance as Harvey Dent, a big positive surprise. Won't go into details about the story, there's so much happening in this movie that the two and a half hours didn't feel overly long. And it's not just a long thrill ride full of action, the movie genuinely raises good questions and brings out surprisingly deep emotions. That's very rare for these kind of super hero movies and that combined with the great cast and direction makes this one a masterpiece.
98%

This is a good opportunity to quickly review the rest of the Batman movies too.



Batman Begins (2005)

At first I wasn't too happy about the idea that they brought Batman from the "fantasy world" into the more realistic environment. But this movie does it so well I couldn't help loving it. It didn't feel like it was destroying Burton's vision, it just took another point of view on things. Christian Bale as Batman was a great choice and the rest of the cast was quite brilliant also. The beginning with all the training and establishing the motives took a bit too long and tended to drag things on for too much. But once Bruce Wayne returns to Gotham the movie really kicks into another gear and the somewhat dull start doesn't matter that much. I liked the action that it wasn't just a CGI mess, even though there is some of that also, but as most of the real action is towards the end the movie feels quite short on it. All in all a worthy remake and a solid good movie.
81%

Those were the "new generation" Batman movies, here's the older saga.



Batman & Robin (1997)

Oh boy, would be easier to say what didn't suck in this one. Uma Thurman was quite good as Poison Ivy. The rest is just horrible crap. It tells a lot about this movie that Schwarzenegger hasn't played a worse role on a worse movie, and as everyone knows his "talent" as an actor and some of the crap he has made, you can get the point.
5%



Batman Forever (1995)

An all-star cast, one of the most versatile super heroes ever and one of the biggest franchises in the history. What could possibly go wrong? Well they put Joel Schumacher as the director. I mean this movie is a lesson about how to fuck up a great plan. The only good thing about this one is the cast who all do quite an ok job, twenty percent to them. Rest is just a bad excuse for a movie.
20%



Batman Returns (1992)

Burton's second continued the saga and gave us same brilliant stuff that worked in the first one and even more. Even thou there's not a single performance as good as Nicholson's the cast is just stellar. Danny De Vito is the ultimate Penguin. There's more action, more drama, more comedy, more Batman. Brilliant sequel.
90%



Batman (1989)

I fell in love with this movie when I first saw it. I was a big fan of the comic book and this movie brought it to a level I didn't believe was possible. Tim Burton's vision is even today something stunningly beautiful, dark and weird. The cast was brilliant with Jack Nicholson as the most notable. I remember spending all my money as I went to see this so many times at the theatre. It doesn't bring that kind of a feeling anymore, being even unintentionally campy at parts. But still it's a masterpiece that will stay precious to me.
94%

That's it for the Burton/Scheissemaker saga. I'm not going to review the cartoons or the TV-series here as they aren't movies. But the old Adam West Batman TV-movie belongs here and I'll put the Catwoman spinoff here too.



Batman (1966)

As a Batman movie total crap, but as a campy fun trip quite brilliant. Bad acting, bad plot, badly made, great fun.
70%



Catwoman (2004)

Even thou it's not a Batman movie, I'll put it here too as it's a spinoff from one of the most famous characters of Batman. Pitof has made some brilliant movies with Jean-Pierre Jeunet as a visual effects supervisor. Too bad he's not a real director as he focuses on the look of the film too much and forgets what crap he's giving to us. This movie looks quite good, but it stinks too much to enjoy it. Halle Berry is quite good as the Catwoman, but the character is so hollow that it gives her very little to play with.
12%