International TV spot: RoboCop (2014)
International trailer #3: RoboCop (2014)
In 2028 Detroit, when Alex Murphy (Joel Kinnaman) - a loving husband, father and good cop - is critically injured in the line of duty, the multinational conglomerate OmniCorp sees their chance for a part-man, part-robot police officer. From: IMDb.com
Directed by: José Padilha
Starring: Joel Kinnaman, Douglas Urbanski, Abbie Cornish and others
Current release date: February 12, 2014
Paranoia (2013) Directed by Robert Luketic
Quite frankly I don't really see how this movie is any worse or more ridicules than the average genre attempt. In that regard, I also really can't say that this movie is any better or worse than the average genre movie.
Of course there are plenty of problems with this movie, mainly in the story department. Yet, it doesn't make this movie a totally horrible one to watch as well. I never felt bored and I never felt angered or annoyed by anything. I therefore also still do see it as a watchable enough movie, though at the same time it isn't anything that's worth recommending to anyone either.
One of the bad things about this movie is that it's one of those technology thrillers, in which all of the technology that gets used is something utterly ridicules and unconvincing. Besides, it's set in a world in which the two fictional companies, headed by the Gary Oldman and Harrison Ford character, are leading the market, yet all of the characters are blatantly using Apple products throughout the entire movie. What was up with that?
Also a problem with the story is that neither the Gary Oldman or Harrison Ford character are 'good guys'. So when the Liam Hemsworth has to spy on the one company, for the other company, you just don't know how to feel about it. Do you want him to succeed? Do you want him to fail? Ultimalty it doesn't matter since there don't seem to be any differences between the Gary Oldman or Harrison Ford characters, or what their companies are doing and standing for. So why should you care about anything that's happening in this movie?
Besides, also partly because of this, the movie never becomes a very engaging or tense one to watch. You just don't ever have the feeling that the Liam Hemsworth's character gets stuck in a situation he can't get out of, or that his life and career ever gets in any real danger. His character's motivations are all a bit shaky and at times even non-existent. He just does stuff but you don't really ever get to understand why he's doing them.
It are all signs of a just too simplistic and not very carefully thought through movie. The movie had plenty of opportunities to make a statement against something such as greed and the big corporations or to become a more 'inteligent' one with any of its themes but it feels like this movie got written and made in too much of a hurry. It eventually all resulted in a pretty shallow, simplistic and forgettable little movie, that doesn't offer enough excitement or any real surprises in it.
But still, I just have to admit that this movie never gave me the feeling I was watching an absolutely terrible one. It's still looking and feeling like a good enough movie, which is mostly due to the performances by its cast members. It's also never becoming a boring or repetitive movie to watch, so I'm really not complaining all too much about it.
Not a complete time waster but obviously nothing too impressive or worth recommending either.
6/10
Watch trailer
International trailer #2: RoboCop (2014)
In 2028 Detroit, when Alex Murphy (Joel Kinnaman) - a loving husband, father and good cop - is critically injured in the line of duty, the multinational conglomerate OmniCorp sees their chance for a part-man, part-robot police officer. From: IMDb.com
Directed by: José Padilha
Starring: Joel Kinnaman, Douglas Urbanski, Abbie Cornish and others
Current release date: January 10, 2014
Trailer #2: RoboCop (2014)
In 2028 Detroit, when Alex Murphy (Joel Kinnaman) - a loving husband, father and good cop - is critically injured in the line of duty, the multinational conglomerate OmniCorp sees their chance for a part-man, part-robot police officer. From: IMDb.com
Directed by: José Padilha
Starring: Joel Kinnaman, Douglas Urbanski, Abbie Cornish and others
Current release date: February 12, 2014
International trailer: RoboCop (2014)
In 2028 Detroit, when Alex Murphy (Joel Kinnaman) - a loving husband, father and good cop - is critically injured in the line of duty, the multinational conglomerate OmniCorp sees their chance for a part-man, part-robot police officer. From: IMDb.com
Directed by: José Padilha
Starring: Joel Kinnaman, Douglas Urbanski, Abbie Cornish and others
Current release date: February 7, 2014
Trailer: RoboCop (2014)
In 2028 Detroit, when Alex Murphy (Joel Kinnaman) - a loving husband, father and good cop - is critically injured in the line of duty, the multinational conglomerate OmniCorp sees their chance for a part-man, part-robot police officer. From: IMDb.com
Directed by: José Padilha
Starring: Joel Kinnaman, Douglas Urbanski, Abbie Cornish and others
Current release date: February 7, 2014
TV spot: Paranoia (2013)
An entry-level employee at a powerful corporation finds himself occupying a corner office, but at a dangerous price: he must spy on his boss's old mentor to secure for him a multi-billion dollar advantage. From: IMDb.com
The Fifth Element (1997) Directed by Luc Besson
This always used to be one of my favorite movies to watch, which is something different than saying it's one of the best movies of all time as well. But the movie as it is entertains and I also have to say that it still holds up very well, 16-years later.
Thing you need to keep in mind about this movie was that it got made in 1997, when science-fiction wasn't exactly at its prime. It was definitely considered to be a somewhat of a lesser genre and every big, adventurous and action packed science-fiction movie that came out still got compared to the Star Wars franchise and often was considered to be a lesser knockoff of it. Thing that makes this movie different from most other '90's science-fiction is because it's totally being different and original, both visually and approach-wise.
This is simply not a movie you should take very seriously, as the movie itself isn't taking itself serious at all neither. It's just a movie to have some fun with and a movie that loves to exaggerate and to go over-the-top, with basically just about everything. The characters, the dialog, the action, the movie its look, it's all very deliberate and highly exaggerated, to create an unique world of its own, with its own look and 'rules', that in no way ever looks or feels like a real world at all.
its visuals are definitely a thing that this movie has going for it as well. It's a futuristic science-fiction movie but also with a very comic-book like touch to it, with its use of colors, framing and just overall look. The costumes by Jean-Paul Gaultier are all great to look at. It works great for the movie its comedy and overall atmosphere as well, as all characters are basically looking very goofy in their unusual, 'futuristic', clothing but at the same time in a still very stylish way.
The special effects are also simply great, even by today's standards. It always amazes me that nowadays I get to see plenty of big budget science-fiction flicks, with some absolutely horrible looking CGI, while back in 1997 there were movies like the "The Fifth Element" that were 10 times better- and far more convincing looking movies, with all of its special effects.
It's also one of those movies that makes you forget its plot. This is simply not a movie that is all about its story but it's more like a ride, that you just have to go along with and completely surrender yourself to. Having said that, once you start paying some more attention to its story, you still can't say about it that it's a poorly- or simplistically written one as well. It's filled with some clever little details and developments, that are often setting things up for sequences that are yet to come later in the movie. You could say that everything happens for a reason in this movie, so nothing ever feels redundant or out of place. The only arguably redundant thing about this movie is the Chris Tucker character but I don't know, he sort of has grown on to me.
All of the other actors are pretty fun and at times even impressive to watch as well. Bruce Willis is of course a great leading man but even more awesome is Gary Oldman as the movie its main villain. Definitely one of his most fun roles as well, from the days that every awesome movie villain got played by Oldman. Fun little detail about the movie is that the main hero and villain in this movie never meet or interact in any way or form with each other.
Absolutely still one of the most entertaining and refreshingly original science-fiction movies out there!
9/10
Watch trailer
Lawless (2012) Directed by John Hillcoat
A good look, some great acting, a nice premise, a great time period it
is set in, this movie has it all. However one thing I can't say about
this movie was that it was also doing a good job at getting me involved
with its story.
I always like movies set in a specific time period in the past, especially when they have a great and detailed look to it, such as this movie does. This movie is set in the 1920's or 1930's and it does a good job at setting the right tone for it. It's definitely a movie with a good look to it and you could tell where most of the money went to, besides its actors.
It really as an all-star cast in it, with perhaps not the world's biggest actors but more the sort of actors who all are 'hot' at the moment and are on a good streak. I know it's easy to make fun of Shia LaBeouf but in all truth and honesty, this kid always had some real talent and potential in him. He didn't always made the right movie choices but with this movie he definitely shows his potential once more and even more than that; he shows he can carry a movie and play a convincing and demanding role in a more 'serious' and heavy movie. Also actors such as Tom Hardy, Guy Pearce, Jessica Chastain, Mia Wasikowska and Gary Oldman show up, making this a real assemble piece, though in all truth, some of them show up for only about 5 minutes.
That perhaps should tell you something about its storytelling already. It isn't always focused and interesting enough. At times the pacing is off and its hard to tell whether the movie wanted to be a fun and entertaining gangster flick or a more serious and realistic one. It doesn't explore certain aspects well enough and pushes some things too much to the background at times. It was hard for me to every truly get into the movie.
It seems that the story just wasn't all that great and interesting enough, or perhaps it was written with a different style in mind. Either way, it doesn't make "Lawless" the best or most engaging movie to watch, though for most part it still remains a perfectly watchable movie. It remains a capably made- and well acted out movie, that was missing something to let it rise above the level of just average.
7/10
I always like movies set in a specific time period in the past, especially when they have a great and detailed look to it, such as this movie does. This movie is set in the 1920's or 1930's and it does a good job at setting the right tone for it. It's definitely a movie with a good look to it and you could tell where most of the money went to, besides its actors.
It really as an all-star cast in it, with perhaps not the world's biggest actors but more the sort of actors who all are 'hot' at the moment and are on a good streak. I know it's easy to make fun of Shia LaBeouf but in all truth and honesty, this kid always had some real talent and potential in him. He didn't always made the right movie choices but with this movie he definitely shows his potential once more and even more than that; he shows he can carry a movie and play a convincing and demanding role in a more 'serious' and heavy movie. Also actors such as Tom Hardy, Guy Pearce, Jessica Chastain, Mia Wasikowska and Gary Oldman show up, making this a real assemble piece, though in all truth, some of them show up for only about 5 minutes.
That perhaps should tell you something about its storytelling already. It isn't always focused and interesting enough. At times the pacing is off and its hard to tell whether the movie wanted to be a fun and entertaining gangster flick or a more serious and realistic one. It doesn't explore certain aspects well enough and pushes some things too much to the background at times. It was hard for me to every truly get into the movie.
It seems that the story just wasn't all that great and interesting enough, or perhaps it was written with a different style in mind. Either way, it doesn't make "Lawless" the best or most engaging movie to watch, though for most part it still remains a perfectly watchable movie. It remains a capably made- and well acted out movie, that was missing something to let it rise above the level of just average.
7/10
Watch trailer
Red band trailer: Lawless (2012)
Set in the Depression-era Franklin County, Virginia, a bootlegging gang is threatened by authorities who want a cut of their profits. From: IMDb.com
Directed by: John Hillcoat
Starring: Tom Hardy, Shia LaBeouf, Guy Pearce and others
Current release date: August 29, 2012
The Dark Knight Rises (2012) Directed by Christopher Nolan
Obviously I had some problems with this movie, or else I clearly would had given it a perfect rating but none of the problems ever prevented me from seeing this as a great movie! So obviously none of the problems I had with this movie ever troubled me too much, though it still are some things that are worth pointing out.
I for instance did had some problems with the main plot of the movie. Bane's motivation and plan just seemed to weak and silly to me, while the character of Bane himself remains a great villain for this movie. He's incredibly strong but above all things can also really use his brain. It makes him a worthy adversary to Batman, on the same sort of level as the Joker in the previous movie. I only did wish he would had used his brains to truly get something out of all of it and wasn't just being evil for the sake of being evil.
Another thing that bothered me, about the whole trilogy as well by the way, is the fact that the movie has an incredible amount of characters in it. Every new movie also keeps on introducing new characters, while I feel that some of them truly weren't all that necessary. Let's face it, did this movie really need Catwoman in it? I so easily could see how this movie would had been without it and it really wouldn't had been anything lesser to watch. Besides after all, the whole dynamic between her and Bruce Wayne/Batman never felt that interesting and gave me a feeling as well that a lot of their scenes together were left on the cutting floor. I pretty much felt the same way about the Joseph Gordon-Levitt character, though this changed toward the ending when his true purpose became apparent. Don't worry, I won't say anything more than that but I thought it was a good and interesting move by the movie.
The movie did perfectly fell together by the end for me and it's final 3 minutes or so are absolutely great! I do admit it made me a bit teary, which means the movie did made an impact on me and I truly felt involved with the events and characters who were all in it.
And this entire movie is basically being handled and buildup as a finale conclusion. You can sense a sense of closure throughout the entire movie, which makes it a bit of a dark and sad one at times. I certainly don't see this movie as a spectacular and entertaining one. As a matter of fact, I still dare to say that Christopher Nolan isn't a great action director. But that's all OK really, since it's going for a totally different approach and seems more concerned about adding layers and reaching conclusions. This is not criticism, for the simple fact that it makes "The Dark Knight Rises" a much deeper and more meaningful movie that just the average superhero attempt, which is also something that can be said for the trilogy as a whole by the way. In that regard 'The Dark Knight' trilogy is truly a great and special one and one to treasure for many years to come, no matter how soon they are going to reboot the franchise again, which is inevitable of course and already had been announced before the release of this movie.
A great movie, that I just didn't love though. Well, expect for its final few minutes maybe!
8/10
Watch trailer
Trailer: The Dark Knight Trilogy
Directed by: Christopher Nolan
Starring: Christian Bale, Michael Caine, Gary Oldman and others
Trailer #2: Lawless (2012)
Set in the Depression-era Franklin County, Virginia, a bootlegging gang is threatened by authorities who want a cut of their profits. From: IMDb.com
Directed by: John Hillcoat
Starring: Tom Hardy, Shia LaBeouf, Guy Pearce and others
Current release date: August 29, 2012
The Dark Knight (2008) Directed by Christopher Nolan
-->
(Review originally written at 24 July 2008)
In all fairness, I wasn't jumping and screaming when "Batman Begins" got released. Although it was a good movie, it just wasn't without its flaws. I even must admit I preferred Tim Burton's "Batman" over it. It's great to see that almost all of its flaws and other inconsistencies are fixed for this sequel to Christopher Nolan's "Batman Begins".
Still it looks at first in the movie its first halve that the movie starts to make the same mistakes all over again. The movie doesn't have a clear main plot-line in terms of knowing which directing the movie is going to head towards and there are many (new) characters again who also all are getting introduced all over again. The movie takes its time to tell what happened to all of the characters in between "Batman Begins" and "The Dark Knight" and it shows who are going to be the new characters in this one. Luckily when the movie reaches its halve way point this all changes and the movie basically becomes a great thrilling and spectacular movie to watch. Its story starts to make some great turns and even presents some unexpected welcome twists in it. Without spoiling too much, some people are dying in this movie but perhaps not the people or person you would expect to. Also Harvey Dent/Two-Face plays a much bigger and more important role in the movie than anticipated. I expected his character to be developed and first set up in this movie and that he would later continue on playing the main villain in the third new Batman movie but he's already an established and important character in this movie and it also definitely features more of Two-Face than I anticipated in advance.
It's a true superior movie that gets uplifted by its exciting plot and sequences. it's still obvious that Nolan just ain't no action director but he certainly did a much better job with it in this movie. It's a fast going movie, that features quite an amount of action but with never forgetting or loosing its main focus on the more realistic and humane aspects of the movie and Batman character. It's not as 'poetic' as "Batman Begins" but still it continues on the same trend with its approach of story and characters.
Luckily this movie has one clear main big villain this time, something "Batman Begins" was really lacking, with its many- and very different villains. There is no doubt that the biggest and craziest crook of this movie is the Joker. More or less the Joker really makes the movie, which not in the least is of course thanks to the way he gets very memorably portrayed by Heath Ledger, in one of his final film roles before his unfortunate early death before the movie its release. You can perhaps even say that it was the Joker that killed Heath Ledger. He was suffering heavily from sleeping problems, right before, during and after wrapping up his Joker role, which resulted in his accidental overdose of prescription drugs. The character also must have really been an absorbing one, since he obviously gets sucked right into his role. He just is the Joker in this movie and there is no holding him back.
But is it just me or are with all this talk about Heath Ledger people are forgetting or simply not seeing that the biggest and most important role of this movie is not being played by Christian Bale or Heath Ledger but by Aaron Eckhart as Harvey Dent/Two-Face. From both the good guys and the bad guys perspective he is the most important and influential character of the entire movie.
And in all fairness and objectivity, since all this talk is going on, I don't think Ledger will get an Oscar for his role in this movie. it just isn't the type of role and movie for ANY actor to ever win an Oscar, though he most likely will still (deservingly so) receive an Oscar-nod. But most important and sad thing- Oscar win or no Oscar win, is that Heath Ledger is no more. One of the most talented new young actors in the business, with the potential of becoming one of the best and respected actors in the business, who would had continued to play more memorable roles, like he did in this movie, as well as in some of his previous ones. It wasn't his last movie role though and he can still be seen next year in Terry Gilliam's "The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus", which release date got pushed back due to Ledger's death since he died during the filming of that movie.
But back to "The Dark Knight", it's true that Batman and his alter ego Bruce Wayne are being pushed somewhat to the background in this movie, with the presence of the Joker and Harvey Dent/Two-Face. But somehow I have the feeling this was intentional from Nolan, who obviously constantly doesn't want to portray Batman as a superhero and he allows more the other characters around him to play the true heroic parts of the movie, also in order to let the Batman character himself seem more humane and realistic.
Realism is obviously an approach picked by Nolan for his Batman movies. Still the movie features some over-the-top action, which is welcome though, since it makes the movie a greatly exciting as well as spectacular one. The storytelling, character handling as well as the overall look of the movie are being kept as realistic as possible, which make this movie, as well as the entire Nolan Batman franchise (no doubt he will direct more Batman movies) different from the usual superhero movie franchise. "The Dark Knight" is more clever, more subtle, which makes it also more original but it luckily doesn't go at the expense of the movie its entertainment.
Already one of the best, most exciting and spectacular movies of 2008.
9/10
Watch trailer
In all fairness, I wasn't jumping and screaming when "Batman Begins" got released. Although it was a good movie, it just wasn't without its flaws. I even must admit I preferred Tim Burton's "Batman" over it. It's great to see that almost all of its flaws and other inconsistencies are fixed for this sequel to Christopher Nolan's "Batman Begins".
Still it looks at first in the movie its first halve that the movie starts to make the same mistakes all over again. The movie doesn't have a clear main plot-line in terms of knowing which directing the movie is going to head towards and there are many (new) characters again who also all are getting introduced all over again. The movie takes its time to tell what happened to all of the characters in between "Batman Begins" and "The Dark Knight" and it shows who are going to be the new characters in this one. Luckily when the movie reaches its halve way point this all changes and the movie basically becomes a great thrilling and spectacular movie to watch. Its story starts to make some great turns and even presents some unexpected welcome twists in it. Without spoiling too much, some people are dying in this movie but perhaps not the people or person you would expect to. Also Harvey Dent/Two-Face plays a much bigger and more important role in the movie than anticipated. I expected his character to be developed and first set up in this movie and that he would later continue on playing the main villain in the third new Batman movie but he's already an established and important character in this movie and it also definitely features more of Two-Face than I anticipated in advance.
It's a true superior movie that gets uplifted by its exciting plot and sequences. it's still obvious that Nolan just ain't no action director but he certainly did a much better job with it in this movie. It's a fast going movie, that features quite an amount of action but with never forgetting or loosing its main focus on the more realistic and humane aspects of the movie and Batman character. It's not as 'poetic' as "Batman Begins" but still it continues on the same trend with its approach of story and characters.
Luckily this movie has one clear main big villain this time, something "Batman Begins" was really lacking, with its many- and very different villains. There is no doubt that the biggest and craziest crook of this movie is the Joker. More or less the Joker really makes the movie, which not in the least is of course thanks to the way he gets very memorably portrayed by Heath Ledger, in one of his final film roles before his unfortunate early death before the movie its release. You can perhaps even say that it was the Joker that killed Heath Ledger. He was suffering heavily from sleeping problems, right before, during and after wrapping up his Joker role, which resulted in his accidental overdose of prescription drugs. The character also must have really been an absorbing one, since he obviously gets sucked right into his role. He just is the Joker in this movie and there is no holding him back.
But is it just me or are with all this talk about Heath Ledger people are forgetting or simply not seeing that the biggest and most important role of this movie is not being played by Christian Bale or Heath Ledger but by Aaron Eckhart as Harvey Dent/Two-Face. From both the good guys and the bad guys perspective he is the most important and influential character of the entire movie.
And in all fairness and objectivity, since all this talk is going on, I don't think Ledger will get an Oscar for his role in this movie. it just isn't the type of role and movie for ANY actor to ever win an Oscar, though he most likely will still (deservingly so) receive an Oscar-nod. But most important and sad thing- Oscar win or no Oscar win, is that Heath Ledger is no more. One of the most talented new young actors in the business, with the potential of becoming one of the best and respected actors in the business, who would had continued to play more memorable roles, like he did in this movie, as well as in some of his previous ones. It wasn't his last movie role though and he can still be seen next year in Terry Gilliam's "The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus", which release date got pushed back due to Ledger's death since he died during the filming of that movie.
But back to "The Dark Knight", it's true that Batman and his alter ego Bruce Wayne are being pushed somewhat to the background in this movie, with the presence of the Joker and Harvey Dent/Two-Face. But somehow I have the feeling this was intentional from Nolan, who obviously constantly doesn't want to portray Batman as a superhero and he allows more the other characters around him to play the true heroic parts of the movie, also in order to let the Batman character himself seem more humane and realistic.
Realism is obviously an approach picked by Nolan for his Batman movies. Still the movie features some over-the-top action, which is welcome though, since it makes the movie a greatly exciting as well as spectacular one. The storytelling, character handling as well as the overall look of the movie are being kept as realistic as possible, which make this movie, as well as the entire Nolan Batman franchise (no doubt he will direct more Batman movies) different from the usual superhero movie franchise. "The Dark Knight" is more clever, more subtle, which makes it also more original but it luckily doesn't go at the expense of the movie its entertainment.
Already one of the best, most exciting and spectacular movies of 2008.
9/10
Watch trailer
Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (2007) Directed by David Yates
(Review originally written at 25 November 2007)
Lots of people at the time praised "Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban" for its dark approach and atmosphere. Well, if "Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban" was a dark movie, than this is an ultra-dark movie. "Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban" was a semi-dark children/fantasy movie that never really dared to cross the line. "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix" is not afraid to this though. I must say that this movie is actually closer to horror than fantasy in my opinion. It had an incredible atmosphere, with also some classic build up horror moments. There is little room left for fun in this movie and it's all very serious. Yes, perhaps a bit too serious though. I felt that the movie could had used some relieving humor at times, something all of the other Harry Potter movies were still loaded with.
No, I'm not a great Harry Potter fan and never will be probably, but I have to give it credit for some thing. The series perfectly adapt to the maturing of the main characters as well as the viewers/readers. In other children book series the readers/viewers of course mature over the years, but the stories don't mature with them and everything remains just the same as the first book/movie. I praise the Harry Potter series for not doing so.
So the movie is quite different from any of the previous other Harry Potter movies. It has a new style, which provides the movie with a different atmosphere. This is being empathized all the more by the different musical score from the still unknown Nicholas Hooper. I liked this idea. A new approach calls for a new style, also in the music. None of the themes sound familiar or reminds us of any of the other previous Harry Potter movies.
The movie is more political than fun. The whole taking over Hogwarts thing by the ministry was done quite nicely and interesting. Harry and friends need to face some serious grown up difficulties now. Voldermort is back, no doubt, which means that there now needs to be fought in a battle between life and death. So no giant spiders, house elves, games of quidditch, brewing potions behind closed doors or snakes this time, but a real murderous evil villain, with dangerous followers, that needs to be stopped.
I'm sort of fed up though with all of these new characters that constantly get introduced in every new Harry Potter movie. It's of course not that any of those characters are bad, or being portrayed by horrible actors, but it just goes at the expensive of already some fine and established actors, such as Minerva, Dumbledore, Snape and Hagrid, who are now all being pushed more to the background. The movie is now filled with literally dozens of characters, that are not all getting the attention they need and deserve.
This is a very recommendable movie, especially if you thought that all of the Harry Potter movies were still too childish.
8/10
Watch trailer
Lost in Space (1998) Directed by Stephen Hopkins
(Review originally written at 15 April 2006)
This remake of the successful '60's television show really is a waste of some good potential. It by no means is an horrible movie but the script isn't really interesting or spectacular and the character treatment is quite poor.
In a way this movie is a mixed bag. On the one hand it has some good actors in it and some of the special effects are really good but than again on the other hand the story is pretty shallow, the costumes are embarrassingly dreadful and some of the special effects are below average at best. Sounds weird, a movie that has both good and bad special effects in it. It's a bit weird, it's like they spend most of the time on the big special effects shots and after that they raffled the rest of the special effects. At times the movie is impressive to watch and at other moments it's just laughable bad to look at. Such as the CG character Blarp. He (or she?) looked absolutely dreadful and it made the movie even more ridiculous and bad to watch. But perhaps worst thing about the entire character is that it's a totally, completely unnecessary one that doesn't add anything to the story at all.
The movie has a solid cast. John Hurt certainly adds some believability to the silly moments in the movie and he deliverers some of the bad dialog good and even credible. Gary Oldman is of course also a great actor but he plays a bit of an uninteresting villain in this movie that doesn't get enough opportunity to shine. Matt LeBlanc is most of the time convincing in his role but he at times deliver some cheesy dialog which doesn't always make him believable as a tough space pilot. Mimi Rogers and Heather Graham also walk around in the movie but they get very little interesting to do. Good in her role was also Lacey Chabert. She's a good young actress, never really understood why she didn't appeared in more mainstream big Hollywood productions. She's an actress with great potential but somehow Hollywood never really picked this up. Maybe it has something to do with the failure of this movie?
Because yes, this movie is a bit of a failure. Not only in terms of how well it did at the box office and how well it was received by the crowd and critics but also certainly in terms of how the movie is constructed. The script is just disappointingly shallow and has some totally unlikely and unbelievable events in it, that at times don't even make sense. The story also uses too many elements from the first Star Wars trilogy and even a little bit from "2001: A Space Odyssey". It doesn't only uses story elements from that movies, it also rips off the looks of some of the spaceships, planets and city skylights. No, "Lost in Space" certainly isn't the most original science-fiction movie ever made.
The movie also lacks some good tension and action sequences. There are too many slow moments in the movie in which totally nothing happens. It's OK to have some slower moments in a movie but only when the script and characters are good and interesting enough to carry those slower moments. In this movie that really isn't the case.
This movie is not a complete disaster and the 4.6 rating here at the moment might be a bit too harsh. The movie does provide some good and entertaining moments. But if only the movie had a better and more original script, than this movie perhaps would had been a bigger success and certainly a better one to watch.
5/10
Watch trailer
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
