Still kind of split on this movie. On the one hand it's being a perfectly original and fine movie but on the other it isn't always giving enough when it comes down to its story and storytelling.
This movie really doesn't sound all that original. It's one of those movies in which a bunch of people end up together at a place and they have no idea how they got there. or even who they are and with what purpose they were 'dropped' together. But luckily the movie is more original and also more creative than it sounds. The twists are all unusual and original ones and the movie doesn't limit itself to just one location. The movie also soon starts to turn into something else, which is all good and fine but I just can't really say that I liked everything about the story.
A movie can definitely be too mysterious and vague for its own good at times. And this movie is a great example of just that. Most of the time it leaves you in the dark about things and you only know just as much as the movie its characters, which isn't an awful lot. This perhaps all sounds greatly mysterious, tense, engaging and thrilling to you but as a matter of fact, the longer the movie isn't giving you any new information or great reveals, the bigger the chance you'll start to loose interest, as indeed also was the case with this movie for me.
I lost most interest about halfway through. The story really wasn't ever giving me enough to latch onto. The movie besides was lacking some decent character development for most part of the movie and it also wasn't always setting things up properly and effectively enough. The pacing besides also feels lacking at times, especially during the first half of the movie, when it also basically isn't revealing- or telling you anything yet.
But really, at the same time I also feel I shouldn't be too harsh on the movie, since it's definitely still is a far better and more creative one than I ever expected it to be and it had a good look to it and an interesting approach to the story, despite the fact that it wasn't always working out that well. Simple fact remains that's still a perfectly watchable movie, despite of all the problems I had with it.
Ultimately I have to say that this is a pretty good and original little movie to watch, even though obviously not everything about it works.
A man wakes up in the wilderness, in a pit full of dead bodies, with no memory and must determine if the murderer is one of the strangers who rescued him, or if he himself is the killer. From: IMDb.com
Directed by: Gonzalo López-Gallego
Starring: Joseph Morgan, Sharlto Copley, Thomas Kretschmann and others
It all sounds too perfect. A Dracula movie directed by Dario Argento, shot in an old fashioned style, with the likes of Rutger Hauer involved in the cast. But this movie really confuses me however and not because it's such a clever or very well constructed one.
I have never felt more confused while watching a Dracula movie. I truly have seen a bunch of bad film-making attempts, that involve the well know blood sucking count, or one of his many off-springs/reincarnations and while this truly isn't the worst Dracula movie that I have ever seen, it still is the one that I'm the least likely to ever watch again. It's just that unpleasant to watch and I just don't know what to make of this movie and how to take it.
How serious am I supposed to take this movie? It's clearly trying to be a throwback to the somewhat more campy and cheap Hammer studios style of horror and it's also constantly 'paying homage' to some of the earlier and better known Dracula productions, including "Nosferatu, eine Symphonie des Grauens". So is this movie deliberately being campy and cheap to look at as well? I think it partly is but also partly not. This movie really didn't have a large budget to spend, even if it wanted to. This becomes mostly obvious when the movie its special effects kick. It's all some incredibly poor looking CGI, that wasn't even acceptable to look at over 15 years ago. And why? It's not like the only way to do a Dracula movie right is by featuring CGI in it. On the contrary really!
But really, the cheap look isn't the biggest problem of this movie. The problem also isn't the bad acting or lack of true excitement and originality. No, the biggest problem of this movie really is its storytelling. It feels all over the place! I'm of course, just like basically everybody else, very familiar with the Dracula tale and legacy but the way this movie tells it...Most of the time I have absolutely no idea what is going on. I can't even really say if it stays close to the original novel or how the story compares to some of the older movie versions since I really can't tell! The movie feels far too random with anything and there isn't a pleasant flow in it. Besides, it also feels like they got Thomas Kretschmann, who plays Dracula, only for a couple of days in January. Then they got Rutger Hauer for 2 days in March and shot all of his scenes and shoot the rest of the movie around these schedules. The movie never feels like one big whole, which truly adds to the reasons why this is such a messy and random feeling one. Kretschmann and Hauer are hardly in the movie at all and it mostly centers around a bunch of other dull character, played by some actors that all clearly got dubbed.
It's not clever or fun enough to work out as a good and effective throwback movie and it really isn't exciting, original or solid enough to work out as a decent enough standalone Dracula flick. It's a bad and cheap looking mess, that is too poorly constructed to consider this an even remotely watchable one. A truly disappointing attempt from the master Dario Argento.
(Review originally written at 15 August 2009) Well, this movie was a bit of a disappointment. It had all of the right ingredients in it needed to make a great and interesting movie with but yet it really wasn't one. It had Tom Cruise, Bryan Singer as director, a fascinating and a based on true events story but the movie just made some wrong choices in the process. The movie really isn't handling its story very well. Instead of telling the story honest and with respect it tells it spectacular and overblown. The movie is too Hollywood-like for its story and the real story and characters deserved a better treatment. But even so, the movie is trying to be Hollywood-like, it yet doesn't even fully succeed in this neither. The movie just isn't spectacular enough to watch for this. There aren't any big shoot-outs or a spectacular ending in which everything reaches a conclusion. There often is more talking than action, so I actually have no clue at which audiences they were aiming. Singer made the same mistake before with "Superman Returns". The movie also made a bad choice with its casting. Nothing wrong with Tom Cruise in his role, even though its also far from his most memorable one but casting some very British actors in some very German roles was simply a horrible choice. The accents did really bother and it was often quite laughable hearing a high placed German commander talking with a very thick British accent. Especially Hitler's voice really bothered me. Sure, the actor that played him (David Bamber) looked well enough like him but he sounded absolutely nothing like him at all. For all I cared they should had called in something to dub his voice but they didn't even bothered with it. It's a shame that most actors feel so out of place within this movie, since the movie does certainly feature some great actors in it, such as of course Tom Cruise but also Bill Nighy, Kenneth Branagh, Tom Wilkinson, Terence Stamp and Thomas Kretschmann, among many others. It's of course a good looking movie and it's also put together professionally with its directing, editing, cinematography, music and such and it also certainly wasn't a cheap movie to make but this simply does not make the movie better or more interesting to watch. It just prevents it from being a total disaster to watch and gives the movie more than enough to still consider this simply a watchable one. 6/10 Watch trailer
(Review originally written at 3 April 2009) This movie is just totally crazy and over-the-top. Besides the fact that it features a totally implausible concept it also features lots of over-the-top action sequences, that will take you back to the days that the action from the Matrix-movies was still something new and impressive. Even though it's not original anymore it still works out surprising effective as well as refreshing in this movie. You should give credit for this to director Timur Bekmambetov. To be honest, I didn't though he would be ready to do a big Hollywood production yet, or better said; I didn't think Hollywood would be ready for it. He has a very distinctive fast directing style, that besides can also really be described as weird and different. It makes this action in this movie work out as original as well as truly dazzling. It's mostly its action and the handling of it that makes this one of the better and more pleasant action movies of recent years. It's a movie that luckily doesn't take itself too serious but not by making itself totally ridicules. The movie has plenty of humor and comical character in it to consider this a fun and pleasant one to watch. It's concept may really not let this movie sound like a good or likable action-flick but you should simply give this movie a chance and you will most probably end up liking it. It's an unexpectedly and also unlikely good movie. The movie also features a good musical score from Danny Elfman, who finally delivers a really great and memorable score again for a movie. It had been a while that he composed anything memorable or distinctive from his other work. Lots of big stars were signed up to give this movie a boost but yet the main role is being played by the humble Scotish James McAvoy, who plays a perfect likable, and probably for lots of persons also really recognizable, loser who needs to become an hero and learn to assassinate people with his unique talents. Angelina Jolie also never looked more foxy before in any other movie role. She is one tough chick in this movie, without ever loosing any of her beauty as well. The presence of actors such as Morgan Freeman, Terence Stamp and Thomas Kretschmann also help to uplift the movie. No matter how ridicules its story perhaps is, it still remains a good written, that features a couple of twists in it as well. It's the combination of story, directing and action that the movie works out as a credible and effective one but foremost you should simply enjoy this movie for what it is; a simple entertaining action-flick with some wonderful and original action moments in it. 8/10 Watch trailer
(Review originally written at 9 August 2008) Over the years many film-makers had provided new movies with new stories inspired on the famous Mary Shelley novel. They often are about the son of Frankenstein or his great-great-great-son or anything else of the sort but they all have in common that they have a mad doctor who is trying to create a new monster. This movie is a Frankenstein movie set in the modern age, which by default already is a very bad idea.
The Frankenstein-creature is a classic character. Putting him in this modern day and age already takes away much of his class and heart.
This movie basically of course doesn't have a lot to do with the famous Mary Shelley novel or any other previous Frankenstein movie. Yet it of course chooses to carry the name "Frankenstein", while it really isn't deserving to. The movie is more a one that concentrates on the police detective work to hunt down 'doctor Frankenstein', in this movie known as Victor Helios, played by Thomas Kretschmann and his creature(s). It isn't really about the creature trying to be good, though there are certainly still some parallels with the Mary Shelley novel. The good old doctor and the creature are more evil villainous ones, for movie purposes, which in my opinion just was a bad choice. They try to make the creature look sympathetic but the creature just remains too much a mysterious one for it to really work out.
I liked the movie its cast with actors such as Parker Posey, Thomas Kretschmann, Adam Goldberg and Michael Madsen involved. The only deserved a better concept and script to work with.
No, it's not like this movie is horrible and it's definitely a watchable one but it's just that the story mostly remains uninteresting and really isn't an involving one to watch, while previous, much better Frankenstein movies, obviously were. The movie is lacking a heart and a good true main character you get to care for. Watching this is an enjoyable yet also very shallow experience. Oh well, at least it all isn't as bad and tiresome as the 2004 TV mini-series, with the same name.
The movie had a good look and atmosphere. No wonder, since it had director Marcus Nispel at the helm, who is an expert in the genre. He did the "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" and is currently working on the "Friday the 13th". So when is he going to do an original horror movie on his own? He seriously needs to start looking for new and original scripts, if he truly wants to become a respected and acclaimed director. He certainly has the talent for it to become one I think. So far none of his movies has been based on original material.
And for those wondering why this movie its ending is so abrupt and feels so incomplete; This movie was supposed to be a pilot for a TV-series. Doubtful that this will ever still turn into a TV-series, since it's now 4 years later already and still no word on it.
OK so it's watchable but it's not really a movie I would just recommend.
(Review originally written at 27 February 2007) The movie remains in the gray for far too long. Very little gets explained as the movie progresses, with as a result lots of weird sequences that seem to have a deeper meaning but because of the way of storytelling they become only just weird and not understandable to watch. It sort of forces you to watch the movie again but no way I'm going to do that. It is that I watched this movie in the morning, I'm sure of it that if I watched this movie in the evening I would had fallen asleep. To me the movie was like a poor man's "Blade Runner". The movie leaves far too many questions and improbabilities. It makes the movie leave a pointless and non-lasting impression. Also the weird look of the movie doesn't help much. The movie is halve CGI/halve real life but it's not done halve as good, impressive, spectacular and imaginative as for instance would be the case in later movies such as "Sin City" and "300". They even created halve of the characters of the movie by computer, which seemed like a very pointless- and odd choice, also considering that the character animation isn't too impressive looking. Sure the futuristic environment is still good looking and the movie obviously wasn't cheap to make but its style over substance and in this case that really isn't a positive thing to say. Some of the lines are also absolutely horrendous and uninteresting. The main God of the movie constantly says lines such as; 'I'm going to do this but it's none of your concern why I want to do it'. Than just don't say anything at all Mr. Horus! It's irritating and a really easy thing to put in movie, if you don't care to explain anything about the plot. Also the deeper questions and meanings of the movie gets muddled in the drivel of the movie and its script. The actors still did their very best. They seemed like they believed in the project and were sure of it that what they were making would be something special. So I can't say anything negative about them. The story and movie is far from original. It rip-offs from a lot of classic and semi-classic, mostly modern, science-fiction movies. It perhaps is also the reason why the movie made a very redundant impression on me. A failed and uninteresting movie experiment. 3/10 Watch trailer
This movie basically is a very well made production and gives a good impression of a war situation and its effects on those involved. It's always interesting to see the story from the 'other' side for a change. This movie concentrates on a group of German soldiers who after fighting in the North Africa campaign are send to Stalingrad, Russia, where one of the most notorious and bloodiest battles of WW II is being fought.
It's interesting to see the other side of this battle, since we mainly just always see the Germans simply as the 'villains'. In this movie those 'villains' are given an humane face and voice and it sort of makes you realize that the only true enemy in war is war itself and not necessarily those who you're fighting against. At first it's kind of hard to concentrate on the movie because you always just have in the back of your mind that the German's are the evil villains. But of course you get accustomed to it quickly and you soon adapt the Germans as the main characters of the movie and you even start to care -and be interested in them.
The way this story is told isn't however the best. It's hard to keep track of the story at times, as it jumps from the one sequence and location to the other. The movie isn't always logic in its storytelling and features a bit too many sequences that remain too vague. It also is most of the time pretty hard to keep the characters apart and see who is who. It doesn't always makes this movie an easy on to watch but than again on the other hand, there are plenty enough sequences and moments present in this movie to make it worthwhile and an interesting one, just not the most coherent one around. In that regard Hollywood movies are always better than European movies.
The production values are high and features some good looking sets and locations, though the movie wasn't even shot in Russia itself. It helps to create a good war time situation atmosphere.
The character are mostly interesting although perhaps a tad bit formulaic. But I don't know, for some reason formulaic characters always work out fine in war movies and strenghtens the drama and realism. It also helps that they're being played by well cast actors. All of the actors aren't the best known actors around (Thomas Kretschmann was also at the time still a fairly unknown actor) but each of them fit their role well and gives its characters an unique face and personality.
All in all not the best or most consistent WW II drama around but definitely worth a look, due to its original approach of the German side of the battle of Stalingrad and its good production values.
Was "King Kong" a bad movie? Absolutely not. Was it disappointing? Slightly.
"King Kong" certainly does have it's moments of greatness. What else was to expect from the director who before dazzled the world with his Lord of the Rings trilogy. Most of the emotions work out well in the movie but are perhaps not as powerful as they truly could had been. This is because the movie suffers from some flawed storytelling and a flawed story in general. The editing and pace is lacking at times, which does make the movie a bit tiresome to watch at moments. 3 hours+ is of course a long sit and although the movie is spectacular to watch throughout it's entire running time, it's the way of storytelling, editing and a series of unlikely events in the movie that made me loose interest at times and prevented me from really feeling for any of the characters or caring really about the emotions.
The movie begins promising but after that it drags for the about next 45 minutes. Seriously did the movie really have to spend so much time on character introductions and were all those sequences aboard the Venture really necessary? The movie can be divided into three pieces; 1. Character introductions and the sequences aboard the Venture. 2. Skull Island sequences. 3. Back in New York. All those 3 pieces really feel like separate pieces and the movie doesn't feel as a whole. Also at certain points when characters get divided, or split-up, the story doesn't feel as a whole and every characters seems to play a role in their own personal movie, that were all thrown together again in the editing room to make one movie out of. It makes the way the story is told feel absolutely weak and flawed at certain moments.
Jackson obviously had more eye for the visuals and Kong than for the human characters and storytelling.
But yes, the visuals of the movie are splendid. Even though the movie didn't really gave me a typical '30's feeling, I still admire the way the re-created the New York of the '30's. Also Skull Island looks fantastic and has some nice settings. And of course Kong himself also really surpassed me expectations to be honest. He looked good and he is perfectly portrayed by Andy Serkis, who gives the character a more realistic feeling.
But that brings me to another problem I had with the movie; The movie tries to impress too hard. They try to top themselves in basically every sequences when it comes to the special effects. You see a dinosaur? Let's bring in an even bigger one! You see an insect? Let's bring in a faster one with more legs and jaws. It makes all of the spectacular action sequences on Skull Island feel very unrealistic and the story becomes too artificial. It's OK to impress the viewer with some revolutionary special effects but not when the story and storytelling suffer from it. I'm not a that big fan of special effects driven movies anyway (might sound strange, that coming from a Star Wars fan.) because of the simple reason that computer effects still look like computer effects, no matter how good they are made. This particular movie overused it's effects, in the never ending effort to impress the viewers and leave them in awe.
The actors in the movie are good. The sequences between Kong and Ann Darrow work out surprising good and powerful at times, which is of course also thanks to Naomi Watts, who was really good in her role. Jack Black is a revelation in a more serious role and he shows that he can also really do some good drama. Adrien Brody is of course also a great actor but I still don't really understand why an Oscar winning actor plays a role like this. It's a role without too much importance and flair. I can certainly imaging the movie without his character. Other fine actors in the movie are Thomas Kretschmann, Jamie Bell, Colin Hanks and Andy Serkis also plays an entertaining, enjoyable role as Lumpy the cook. All of the characters however are given very little screen time in the second and third act of the movie, with the exception of Ann Darrow of course. The movie truly mainly focuses on Kong and Ann Darrow. It does provide the movie with some good, powerful and emotional moments but at the same time it also provides the movie with many missed opportunities. The slowly turning evil transition of the Jack Black character for instance and how Preston (Colin Hanks) at certain points later in the movie forms his only link to the realistic normal world, instead of the money and fame driven world Carl Denham imagines himself in. The movie could had been so much more powerful and certainly more realistic if they had only spend more time on the script and gave the other characters also some more screen time, instead of just mainly only focusing on Ann and Kong.
Of course it's a summer blockbuster and of course the story comes secondary. However in this particular case I really feel that the movie suffers from it's flawed story and storytelling. It's so obvious that the story is just almost totally empty and the movie is nothing more than one spectacular but yet unlikely event after the other. The movie forgets about its story at times and try too hard to impress the viewers with its special effects and other visuals. It makes the movie too artificial and forced to watch at times.
The movie still remains almost perfectly entertaining to watch, just because so much spectacular happens. Some of the action is impressive and unforgettable but really the movie deserved a better story and character treatment. If that was the case, I almost surely would had regarded "King Kong" as one of the best movies of 2005.
A movie can definitely be too mysterious and vague for its own good at times. And this movie is a great example of just that. Most of the time it leaves you in the dark about things and you only know just as much as the movie its characters, which isn't an awful lot. This perhaps all sounds greatly mysterious, tense, engaging and thrilling to you but as a matter of fact, the longer the movie isn't giving you any new information or great reveals, the bigger the chance you'll start to loose interest, as indeed also was the case with this movie for me.
