Brainpiercing Reviews

Doom: Annihilation (2019)

Not nearly as bad as most of the reviews here make it seem! Actually entertaining and respectful of source material!

[6/10 · 18 October 2019]

So... maybe everyone is spoiled because there is a new doom game that doesn't look dated anymore... Or maybe people just want too much from their franchises... Or people just don't like female leads...

These people all seem very disappointed with this movie! Which... it doesn't quite deserve!

There aren't actually any real spoilers in this review, but I put up the warning just in case...

BUT... let's start at the beginning:

THE BAD:

• The film is incredibly generic, being a complete rip-off of Aliens and other generic squad of marines movies
• The characters are completely one-dimensional, with the exception of the lead
• The dialogue, especially in the exposition, is forced and semi-coherent, and the exposition takes a bit too long for a film like this, where...you know you could try to care about these characters, but you know you won't ;)
• Some VFX look cheap, as do the sets
• Probably the budget was too low for more demons
• Yes the chainsaw where it is really makes no sense :P
• The film explains the crew of the station being possessed and zombiefied, but.. in the end it's just zombies, and not possessed soldiers like in the game
• did I mention not enough demons, too many zombies?
• The lead is inexplicably a ridiculously powerful fighter
• the names of the characters :O :O :O
• The weapons used were less fun than they could have been. Generic assault rifles mostly... As the game is from the 90s where the Pump-action shotgun was the most powerful weapon in existence in EVERY MOVIE, and of course ended up in games, there is a tiny nod to shotguns, but it doesn't really land. No Minigun, no rocket launcher, limited sci-fi weapons from the game...

THE UGLY:

• The "portal to hell" CGI... ugh...
• Generally... CGI was not up to par

THE GOOD, and yes, there is some!

• Functional and respectful nods to the ORIGINAL 1995 doom game (keycards and exploding barrels, for instance ;))
• Sets look doomy
• The movie tries to make the setting from the game moderately make sense! Because lets face it, the game didn't make sense AT ALL!! It didn't need to, because it was FUN anyway, whereas films that are completely nonsensical just don't work!
• There were no major glaring discontinuities, no B-Movie fade-to-blacks that lead to scene changes that don't make sense, etc., the plot-holes are genre-typical and the story is stringently told!
• The cinematography is tight and functional, and doesn't frustrate with jerky cutting and horrible visibility! And things still (mostly) didn't look crap!
• Once things start moving, the film is moderately suspenseful!
• The fights are fun and gory, and both the shooting and HTH action are decently choreographed and fun to watch! They used actual martial-arts-capable stuntmen which are capable of looking good without 10 cuts per second and jittery camera!
• practical effects are nice
• both zombies and demons are quite capable, fast, and scary
• some of the acting is decent, and some of the interactions between characters were decent
• the movie had us ENTERTAINED, even though it's generic

So... all those people dishing out 1 to 3 stars were clearly expecting too much! I expected it to be really really bad, and I was positively surprised! By IMDB standards a 5 is already pretty bad, so I'm giving it a 6! Generally watchable movie!

Mythica: The Necromancer (2015)

YES it's cheesy, it's low-budged (and sometimes looks it), but it's actually not that bad!

[6/10 · 20 June 2016]

I'm not going too far out on a limb here saying, the Mythica series have always been like role playing sessions put into films. And... some here may disagree, but for me that's not a bad thing. Roleplaying adventures have always had their share of idiosyncrasies stemming from the genre - and they are all here: - a bogus motivation (BUT I credit the script writer that at least it wasn't a damsel in distress this time, but ironically the 'warrior') - a weird step-by-step quest - consecutive fights against hordes of useless bad guys - bogus drama - an encroaching super-powerful evil - a final battle against said super-powerful evil, that somehow ends with: - the critical level-up/deus-ex-machina solution.

HOWEVER, as a role-player - if not a currently active one - I find I repeatedly enjoyed myself, with this film and the other two, and more or less forgave these flaws. And I mind them less here than in a regular Hollywood (or other big budget cinema factory) flick that usually manages to add at least a few flaws of similar nature and proportion. (For instance the numerous flaws in the Hobbit trilogy bugged me far more, as those were made with - in comparison - unlimited money and access to talent.)

The production values present are of course not worthy of A-list cinema, and due to certain developments of big-budget TV-shows unfortunately not even A-list TV. But visuals are functional for the story, not bad enough to entirely distract, and I would say this third movie looked better than the two previous ones. CGI effects were bearable. Props and non-cgi effects were quite good. Fights were of course nothing special, but no worse than an episode of Arrow or other action oriented TV-show that relies on lots of guys standing around twitching before being beaten up one by one. The undoubtedly thousands of dollars invested into a few minutes of helicopter footage over different landscapes add a nice quality and tangibility to the world. Acting was... well... so-so, but then you can't expect too much. No worse than Orlando Bloom, anyway :P

What are the up-sides? The story is engaging enough. The characters have chemistry and reasonable development, and each get their cool moment. The GM-PC is a nice touch, an interesting guy, who unfortunately doesn't get developed enough, and finds a rather pointless end. Even though inconsistent and sometimes cheesy, I liked some of the spell effects. Also the "necromancy" effects on Marek's face are suitably dramatic. There is a nice build-up for the next film.

So: For me this film is a solid 6. And mind you this already includes IMDb rating creep. A 6 means it's very watchable if you like the genre. Flawed but watchable!

Perfect Sense (2011)

Has a lot going for it initially but loses a lot due to plot-holes, etc.

[5/10 · 18 March 2012]

First of all: This movie has a lot going for it. Powerful imagery, good acting, generally good pacing, as has undoubtedly been discussed before. However, after watching it I was mainly annoyed by the gigantic plot-holes and strange idiosyncracies the movie contains. What happened to cell phones, sms, or even the internet? Why antagonize the viewer with the overly stupid behaviour exhibited by the main protagonists when the disease starts looming in on their relationship? And the final annoyance to tip the scales was the **SPOILER** superbly corny reunion scene, using so many over-used "near-miss" techniques, compounded by the characters' inability to hear, all of which could have been avoided by a single sms. These people were using cellphones before. ***/SPOILER***

So in the end the weird mix of realism on the one hand and a strangely unrealistic string of events didn't leave me convinced. The movie felt like the script writer had a few distinct scenes in mind which were to happen at various points in the script, and then somehow forced everything to fit together. This has NEVER worked well. A good scene that is made to happen by contriving some obscure constellation of events ends up just as contrived as the rest of the construction.

***SPOILER*** And finally the movie leaves you with a profound feeling of "So what?". It's really an apocalypse film that focuses on dealing with the inevitable consequences, but the final outcome really IS the end of the world, in spite of the final words of the narrator. It would have been more powerful if the movie had ended with a less catastrophic final phase for the disease. As is, you are now left to imagine how everyone stumbles around until they inevitably starve. ***/SPOILER***

The only way this movie sort of works is as a strange moral piece on taking things for granted and coping with the loss of them.

The Hangover Part II (2011)

Sorry, just not funny

[1/10 · 6 January 2012]

I honestly don't remember much of the first movie, so originality isn't a part of my judgement. Also, obviously, the movie looks good, the cinematography is good, the acting is OK, and all that. But, after all, the movie is supposed to be a comedy, and it's really not. I watched it expecting crude humour, and I dig crude humour, when it's done well, except this time it isn't. The almost exclusive kind of joke in the film is the "gross" kind, the kind to send a group of fifteen-year-olds into a squealing fit. And hey, I get it, 'that's really gross, ha-ha', but the funniest non-PC and gross jokes are the photos during the ending credits. And then, why did I just watch the movie? There are two or three genuinely funny moments in the entire film. I watched this with my girlfriend, and honestly, we buy comedy. Probably our neighbours can hear us laughing at some shows. But this? A few smiles, now and then, that's it. One and a half boring hours. And no, I'm not offended by anything in the movie. Just bored.

So as far as recommendations go: If you like any kind of witty, revealing, dialogue driven, situational, reflective kind of comedy, go look elsewhere. If you like well-made crude humour, still look elsewhere. What you have here is a glossed-over waste of time.

Lost in Translation (2003)

Midlife crisis by a thirty year old? Gimme a break

[8 May 2004]

Let's get things straight right out of the box, I liked this movie, to an extent. It's funny, charming, and enjoyable. However, it's also a movie that tries to be wise about things it has no business being wise about. It tries to be wise about inter-cultural relationship, it's not. If it's supposed to display the American arrogance it does it in a way too self-indulgent manner. If it's not supposed to show it, much worse.

It also tries to be wise about a woman who feels lonely sitting in her hotel room all day, but has friends in Tokyo who party out all night, have their own private bars and Karaoke rooms, and generally don't seem to be the kind of people who feel lonely anywhere. Talk about plot holes.

It tries to be wise about a midlife crisis, it's not. Don't get me wrong, Bill Murray is great, but that's just him, and the scene comedy. Everything else is way over the top. The terrible wife, the bar, the ad scenes, the stupid actress, the "past her prime" singer. There are REAL reasons for mid-life depression, they might not be as funny, but what Coppola does here is WAY too obvious. What makes it worse is that it's being displayed in a way of saying "believe me". The movie isn't drawn out as a caricature, why so many caricature elements done half-heartedly? It's as if Coppola couldn't decide whether to be subtle or over obvious in a positive sense. There's too much cheap symbolism. It comes off as funny and charming, but only stupid people will think it's REAL. The greatest comedy is always in reality, but only someone who has experienced it can display it. There's a reason that age and wisdom are supposed to go together. What I see in "Lost in Translation" is very obviously fake experience. Coppola wants to play with the big boys (and girls), but falls short because she can't compete with real experience. It's not a catastrophe (hey, it's not like she doesn't know Walmart), but it's not really a triumph, either. The sad thing is, with the quality of movies out there right now, LIT comes off as a relief, and that's really not a good thing (for the other movies).

So what's good about this movie: Despite the plot-holes, the characters and the dialogue, not even mentioning that a movie that takes it's own time instead of this fast-cut trash we see every day is just good by itself. Scarlett Johannson is refreshing as Charlotte, and comes off as quite genuine, acting-wise. Strangely enough her style reminded me of Owen Wilson, while that may not make her happy, it's not a bad thing. There something genuine and sincere about both of them that stands out among the hollywood cast of today. It seems like they don't waste time acting, and simply ARE. There are other great things about this movie. Despite lacking experience and trying to fake it, Coppola has a good eye for scenes, and it certainly didn't fail her. Take the swimming women bobbing about in the pool for instance, or the strange woman in the hospital. Those scenes are great, without all the faking.

So how to epitomise my ramblings? It's not a bad movie, but it's far from perfect. All I can say is, watch it, enjoy it, but don't let it fool you completely.

Ride with the Devil (I) (1999)

Probably only a non-American could make this movie

[9/10 · 2 April 2004]

I've watched this movie twice now on DVD, and both times it didn't fail to impress me with its unique impartial attitude. It seems more like a depiction of reality than most other Hollywood fare, especially on a topic that is still hotly discussed. Even though it sticks closely with the southern viewpoint, it doesn't fail to question it, and in the end the only sentence passed is that the war is lost, not matter what, and cruelty is a common denominator.

What really makes this movie outstanding is the refusal to over-dramatize. Nowadays truly good movies (in a nutshell) are few and far apart, with mainstream fare being enjoyable (if you don't have high expectations), but terribly commercially spirited. I think this movie comes off as a truly good movie (without being a masterpiece), because it sticks to itself, and gives the viewer a chance to watch and analyze it, instead of wanting to bombard him with effect and emotion to blot out his intelligence. This movie is cool, observant, and generally light-handed in its judgement, which is GOOD.

The story has its flaws, especially Jewel's Character comes off doubtfully, but then again the situation at the time was so chaotic, that for a young widow it might have been only logical to somehow get back into a normal life, even by liberally taking each next guy. Still she doesn't come off as weak, in fact I think she's one of the stronger characters, she's always in control of the relationships, with the men just tagging. And I take it very gratefully that she's not a weeping widow. I believe in the 19th century death of a loved one was something a lot more normal than now. You could die so easily of even minor illnesses and injuries, so the prospect of of someone dying, while surely causing grief, didn't traumatise people like it does now. People didn't seem to build shrines about their lost ones like they do now, and I like that attitude.

My recommendation is for intelligent people to watch this movie, if they are in the mood for something different than the usual hollywood fare. Don't watch if if you want non-stop action or heart-renting emotion.

Big Shot's Funeral (2001)

As usual great satire comes without belly aches

[10/10 · 14 March 2003]

This film won't give you belly aches, but it is still thoroughly amusing. The acting is great on the most part, not overdone, simple and to the point. Kwan is the only character to do some more exaggerated acting, the others have no need for it.

The nice thing about this movie is that it seems to hover lightly over serious matters, and only wants to point out some of the insanity in modern day business. It actually comes off as not seeming very critical, you may come to your own conclusions. The satire remains friendly, the criticism is presented without the moral pointers. You've got the love the moment when Yo Yo snaps out one of the glasses from the shades the body is to wear, and puts a contact lens on the puppet's eye.

I won't dwell on the witty language, my grasp of Chinese is way too poor for that, trust the Chinese comments on that. I must say that while Chinese comedy is quickly approaching a standard of western stupidity (Marry a Rich Man, Chinese Odissey, etc.) this film stands out as witty and intelligent, and in no way deserves the poor scores it has received here.