vampiri Reviews

The Exorcist: Believer (2023)

Unfair thrashing of a not so bad film

[7/10 · 28 October 2023]

A lot of bad critique is levtitating (pun intended) around this film: bad script, bad acting, too many unfolded subplots, too few scary scenes etc etc.

Well, if you compare it straight off with The Exorcist - 1973, you won't get any arguments from me. But doing that is just silly. It has been 50 years since the first one, that is half a century. The 1973 film was from another time with diffrent values, different world, different schools concerning directing, acting, actors were different. Things change and it is impossible to recreate something that was made 50 yeras ago.

Some complain about the movie not bringing anything new, well, that's true for the film as a whole, but exorcist movies outside this franchise after 1990 does not bring anyhting new to the genre either. There are new, small bits and pieces in many of all the exorcist movies ever made up to date.

However, one piece of critique is correct: the film fails to create tension and mysticsim. But, on the other hand, no one can argue that Fellowship of the ring: the two towers creates the same feelings as the first one did either, because you know from the first film what to expect from the second. But that trilogy is outstandig when it comes to quality filmmaking.

The right question, which some reviewers ask, is: was this film necessary? Is a trilogy necessary? The answer is "no" and "absolutely not". Tons of exorcist movies have been made since 1973, as well as a tv series connected to the Exorcist franchise, so I do not think it is necessary to make a another sequel, even less a trilogy.

I love the genre and this franchise nontheless, which is why I give it 7/10, but to be objective it lacks in mystery and horror. So I agree with the rating 5/10 (28 of October 2023), the film is just too flat. That being said, if the plan is/was to make 2 more films we must be more patient and forgiving. However, the film does not stand out in comparison to other horror films, but the production values are good, the movie is well made, but lacks depth and suspense.

I'd say it is on par with Deliver us from evil (2014) and the Pope's exorcist (2023), less good than the Exorcism of Emily Rose (2005).

Do watch the Exorcism of God (2021), a great film that went under the radar.

The Infernal Machine (2022)

Did ANTS rate this movie?

[9/10 · 1 January 2023]

I am clueless as to why this movie to this date, 1 of January 2023 is rated 5,3/10.

Plot: A secluded-living man wholed up at a house in the middle of nowhere starts getting messages from an unknown hard-to-reach person. Equally anoyed and entized he starts climbing that anthill (pun intended) to find out what is what.

Indeed, the story and how it unfolds is hard to stomach, borderline to the fantastic. But, boy, it does grab you by the balls.

More than one review complain about how it does not work. I agree in the sence that the build up is almost like reading a fantasy novel, in this case not dragons and lines like "You shall not pass!!", but the clues and how the movie untangles are very much like fantasy. They are highly unplausable and the details and how the antagonist have planned their execution is rich.

However, this is also why, in my opinion, the movie is totally awesome. There are some red herrings here and there, and I am the first to confess to the fact that I am not Hercule Poirot, but it took me a while before knowing what is what. I think more viewers than not figured everything out way before me.

But, I just love how the writer has come up with this story. A tip in the hat is in order. This is also why I love this movie, it drew me in from the start.

Guy Pearce is one of my favourite actors, but Jeremy Davies steals the show clean off. 54 movies to his toll makes him not so an accomplished actor, yet. I followed his work for a good while now (Saving Private Ryan and Justified) and the man is clearly being overlooked.

The movie shows good craftmanship all over. "Does not work"? Read two reviews, neither explain satisfactory why it does not work. Maybe they watched too many trailers. Perhaps the marketing of the movie in their country/-ies was done in the wrong way and sold the movie as horror or thriller.

Yes, the movie is hard to categorize. Imdb it tags it with "mystery" and "thriller", which is not wrong per se, but I would say "Nightcrawler" and "Prisoners" are thrillers which would make this movie null and void in that category.

So, who should watch this movie then? Well, those who expect horror elements...do not bother. Thrill seekers by "Nightcrawler" way...do not bother. Up for an entizing good time and enjoy I-cannot-wait-to-see-what-is going-happen-next-and-how-is-this-going-to-end feelings during playback...well, this movie is for you.

Mindcage (2022)

why oh why...?

[4/10 · 18 December 2022]

Serial killer movies is quite difficult to make. Much like horror movies, they are constructed around cliche. The key is character build up and craftmanship. Mindcage is full of cliche and none of craftmanship and character build up.

At times the movie seem to be over the top constructed around the cliches, and at that at beginner level, i.e. The red herrings are too obvious, and theses are crucial to mystery movies.

The movie also lacks fluency, i.e. The scenes are mechanically put together in segments with disturbedly incoherency.

Actorwise the selection is poorly made, especially the supporting roles. The husband of the lead character and the prison psychologist is a joke. Martin Lawrence will never be able to pull of a serious character/movie. Malkovitch tries his best, but delivers his standard unsettling character. Knepper is good as the sheriff and is always watchable.

It is not a terrible movie as such, but could have been done better by working the script more and used other actors. The movie uses some tricks to make it different from other serial killer movies. I cannot reveal them here since it would spoil the movie, but I would have used these tricks more and created fusion of horror/serial killer/mystery movie.

All in all, it is not a terrible movie, I have seen much worse. The movie is just flat. IMDB rates it, to this date, 4,1/10 and that is quite correct.

The Exorcism of God (2021)

A new exorcist in town?

[7/10 · 14 March 2022]

Exorcist movies never seem to quite wane. I suppose people in general are suckers for Good vs Evil - Bible style. Unfortunately screenwriters and directors are suckers for making bad exorcist movies.

Personally I am a sucker for exorcist movies, but I try to give a nuanced review....

Plot: tainted priest defies advice and tries to exorcize victim on his own which makes him vulnerable in ways he would never fathom.

The production company has managed to get a substantial number of investors interested in getting this movie done. Rightly so. I was pleasantly surprised by the acting and the special effects. Some reviewers complain about the quality, unjustly so. But I suppose if you decide to monitor the effects you may see some flaws, but I you focus on the movie as a whole, they hold up just fine. I have seen much worse mistakes, i.e. Mircophone in the jungle in Schwarzenegger's Predator and a fully visible tech guy in X-tro.

This exorcist movie has some new takes on the genre, such a reversed ecxorcism as well as new thoughts about the ritual of exocrcisms. There is also some semi new stuff as seen in the excellent series Evil and The Exorcist, which makes it more intersting and potent. However, the downside of this potency is that the movie is a bit too short to fit all this in. I think this movie would have improved by downplaying the occult elements the first 30-40 minutes and focused more on creating a mystery. The origin of some of the possessed "creatures" is somewhat unclear.

On the whole this is a solid movie on par with recent movies like Aaron Eckhart's Incarnate, Eric Bana's Deliver us from Evil, but substantially beneath the classic The Exorcist, Legion and The Exorcism of Emily Rose.

Since I am admittedly a sucker for this genre I rate this movie 7/10. But in some regards I agree with some of the other reviewers and to those who may not be into this genre and see this movie as a horror movie, I must be inclined to rate it 5/10. Still, a nice surprise indeed, especially since it is quite hard to make decent horror movie.

Driving While Black: Race, Space and Mobility in America (2020)

Important historical contribution

[8/10 · 10 November 2021]

As a white man who can't jump I want to say that this documentary is a important piece in the history of the brutality against people of color. Although I before hand knew bits and pieces mentioned in the documentary, i.e. The Montgomery boycott, Jim Crow, these bits and pieces were nicely put into a larger picture and thus became more coherent to me.

Although I cannot be held responsible for these horrid actions against afro-americans I still feel some degree of awkwardness. But most of all I feel ashamed of being a part of mankind.

Watch it and take a moment to contemplate what you just watched.

Infinite (2021)

Hollywood gone bonkers?

[3/10 · 13 June 2021]

I'll make this short:

Assassins Creed meets Altered Carbon meets R-U-B-B-I-S-H.

Joker (I) (2019)

Second thoughts make second rate

[8/10 · 5 October 2020]

After seeing the movie at a theater I rated this film 10/10. However, after seeing another masterpiece, "the king of comedy", yesterday I had to re-rate Joker.

Although an excellent film, Joker is just a remake of "the king of comedy". It pains me to chip of 2 grades, but an obvious remake cannot earn 10/10 in my book.

But that's no reason not to watch Joker. It is worth a couple of hours of your time. Joaquin has earned his medal, his performance is outstanding. It is a moody film, dark, funny in its own quirky way.

It is very dark, so although it is more or less a pure drama, it has violent undertones which makes it a film that requires a particular mood to watch it.

There is no super heroes, nor any super stuff what so ever. So those of you who are DC/Marvel comic fans and expect bright neon colored jump suits...do not watch Joker. If you are into character development and hails great acting no matter what genre...do watch it.

She Dies Tomorrow (2020)

What if.....?

[4/10 · 23 August 2020]

Plot: Girl has a feeling she's going to die tomorrow, but....

Odd film, indeed. Some write that it is boring and bad acting. This movie is basically 90% talking, i.e. not driven by events. I'd say that Tarantino masters the art of writing movies with 90% talking, i.e. Reservoir Dogs, and not so much really going on, difference is that he's writes funny dialogue with funny characters. Tarantino aside, these kinds of movies do not necessarily turn out bad, but they demand a lot from the viewers. If Alfred H. was alive he would probably shout "red herring".

A Swedish reviewer of a big newspaper thought it had a vague ending. It is pretty clear to me.

I don't think this movie is bad as such, the idea is really, really good, but the writer squanders it. Lack of money, talent, writers' block...,who knows? I can think of many ways how to re-write this movie. Obviously I cannot put the ideas here, because then I would probably spoil they movie.

So, who should watch this movie then? Well, those of you who are intrigued by the plot and picture a grand thrilling movie in your heads...sit this one out. If you like low budget, indie type of movies and are curious about the director...look no further.

I give it 4/10, due to its lack of ingenuity and no hints at all about what is going on.

Close Range (2015)

what do you expect??

[4/10 · 23 November 2015]

I have said it before...reviews/votes on quite a large bunch of films are odd at best. Some are over the top, some way too low to be taken seriously, a fact even if you account for personal taste.

Plot: ex soldier frees niece only to be hunted down because of missing piece of data.

Close Range is a "fighting film", - I choose not too call it a martial arts film because, to me, films belonging to that genre/sub genre are movies like Undisputed and Blood Sport who centers on, most often anyway, martial arts on a stage of sorts, whereas "fighting films" contain/focus on martial arts skills, but also mixed with ordinary brawls depending on setting and often set in an "open world" i.e. a city, crime, war etc. I also argue that movies like Blood Sport most often have no focus on plot at all, and "fighting films", more often any way, put a little more effort into creating something you could call a plot.

Reviewers complain about bad acting, bad script, stupid gang bangers, lack of plot. Come on!! What do you expect? Neither martial arts movies, nor "fighting films" are known for these things, sure a few have good acting or plot. However, there is a reason they are called martial arts movies, they focus on fighting. If they, the writers/producers, wanted excitement, Oscar nominations etc, they would not be doing martial arts movies.

Now, Close Range won't go down in history as a particularly good movie in any regard. It is not very good. As one reviewer pointed out, all the money seems to be spent on the fighting scenes.

But I always try to be fair and objective. Sure the acting is not good, but not worse that most other "fighting films". If focus is on fighting, why spend money and valuable time on explosions and writing the script?

Also, if you consider, for example, the fact that movies are categorized as this or that on websites and media of all sorts and you study the cast you should understand what quality the movie will have. Close Range is categorized as "action" and "crime", the star is Scott Adkins and the only other "well known" is Nick Chinlund. I praise Adkins for his fighting skills and charisma, not his acting. I like Chinlund because of his skills in portraying bad guys, but he is not Oscar material either.

The bad guys are stupid some say, well, can't argue there. But so are teens in horror movies.

Close Range works as entertainment for the moment. The fighting scenes ARE good, however not memorable.

I hope Adkins will get the recognition he deserves. He is a very good martial artist and a decent actor who deserves better roles/movies. But he will never reach cult status like van Damme or Dolph Lundgren, on the other hand, these two actors are "products" of their time like Stallone and Scwarzenegger.

Finally, Close Range is similar in quality like The Night Crew, 4got10, so if you like those movies you will like this one. But if you like The One, Universal Soldier and Skin Trade - which all have better cast, acting, script, fighting scenes, you will be more or less disappointed.

I give it 4/10, watch if you have nothing better to do for the moment.

Re-Kill (2015)

kinda new at least

[6/10 · 17 October 2015]

I thought I'd seen it all and with TV shows like Fear the Walking Dead and The Walking Dead there would not be much more to add.

Plot: zombie virus has spread throughout the world and mankind has to do what is necessary to halt the spreading. Managing to contain it somewhat the government has created a special unit to clean out neighborhoods and secure that not a second outbreak will occur. A TV station has created a show around this unit.

I just love zombie movies, can't get enough of the theme of a small group of survivors trying to make it. Sadly, good zombie movies are hard to come by these days and ,quite frankly, it is a difficult genre to reinvent.

The Walkind Dead is excellent, showing the depravity of men combined with gore and survival. However, movies, unlike TV series, do not have the luxury nor time to explore that theme since you only got two hours or so to tell a story. Therefore zombie movies tend to revolve around getting from point A to point B or defending some sort of gated community. By now that has become dull which makes Re- Kill somewhat new, re-inventive even although not a revelation of sorts.

Re-Kill is structured like a mixture of reality TV, shows like Cops and the ever so popular found footage films (genre), which makes it a little bit new. And yes, you get plenty of gore too!

The positive sides is thus that it is relatively new, plenty of gore, good effects and decent acting from well known actors although not top notch. The zombies are not the slow, traditional ones of Romero's, but fast like 28 Days Later.

Downsides are the shaky camera, which is way too shaky even for a found footage movie; in general, too simple a plot; unexplored carachters; and not so much about the how, when, who and why.

A tip of the hat goes to the hilarious commercial breaks and the interviews of "real people" surviving the virus/attacks which echoes both Verhoeven's Robo Cop 1 & 2 and Starship Troopers. They are what really keeps the movie interesting and funny.

Bruce Payne is worth mentioning. Too me he is somewhat of a legend. But I must confess, I have always thought his acting style to be awkward and a bit stiff. But here he seems a bit more "alive" and tries to give his carachter a personality.

I haven't seen all zombie movies so I can't really say it is one of a kind within the genre itself, but to me it is kinda new and therefore I can't say "see this one if you liked...". However, if you like zombie films in general, traditional or more action driven, you will probably enjoy this one.

I give 6/10 due to its "newer" take on the genre, good acting (for the genre), the sfx.

The Gift (VI) (2015)

Not your ordinary psycho stalker movie

[7/10 · 11 October 2015]

In my opinion psycho/stalker movies are as hard to make believable/fresh as, say, haunted house movies. Why? Because how much can you divert from the genre without making the movie a whole other matter?

Plot: mid-thirties couple moves to the suburbs to make a fresh start. To their surprise someone from the past turns up to shake the foundations.

The Gift, to me, feels, not totally of course, somewhat fresh. How so? Stalker movies have: 1. the stalker 2. a couple/bunch of friends to be stalked and usually killed off 3. usually a lame revenge motive 4. often over the top psycho behavior (boiling rabbit a.k.a Fatal Attraction).

The Gift have points 1 and 2, but not so much 3 and 4 (thank God) which makes it "somewhat fresh".

The revenge motive is kept suspenseful and intricate as is the revenge plan. Since this genre is quite narrow when it comes to narrative, genre "ingredients" and number of carachters it is hard to write about the story and its development and carachter development without revealing too much, I limit myself by saying it is thick and interesting and it makes you wonder how it will end. Well, maybe not as much "how" as compared to the journey to the end.

However, what is the most rewarding and surprising is the acting of Joel Edgerton (both writer and director of this movie) which blew me away. Rarely do I see such transformation/up grade of acting skills/portrayal to the better, at least to this extent. Edgerton is superb. I have always liked him, but for a long while he has been stuck portraying low key carachters with not so much to say. Which in turn might explain the choice to both direct and write. He manages to convey vulnerability, determination, psychotic behavior and ingenuity with total believability and subtleness.

Although not a big fan of Jason Bateman's, I still have to recognize his effort. His portrayal of a carachter willing to keep his life as it is is uncanny.

The weak points of the movie is the genre itself which is hard to make surprising and Rebecca Hall whose carachter is common and uninteresting. On the other hand, the chemistry in this genre lies in the connection between the lead character/-s and the villain since the plot revolves around the them.

If a movie could solely be reviewed based on one actor's performance I would give The Gift 10/10, but since that is totally nonsense and due to the limitations of the genre itself, I give it 7/10. If you enjoy the genre in general and films such as Fatal Atttraction and Disclosure you will enjoy this one.

No God, No Master (2013)

Anti-Russia propaganda?

[5/10 · 7 June 2015]

Well, were to start and what to say, eh? Although only a "user" of IMDb for a measly 2 years I have noticed that many remark on the high marks of certain movies, i.e. No God, No Master and Time Lapse. Furthermore, for my part, I have also seen quite a few movies with odd marks, both overrated and underrated.

Sure, movie companies may very well pay persons to write favorable reviews. Some, however, may seem to write bad reviews just for spite towards those over-favorable reviews. Neither type of review is any good.

Movie companies I understand, it is, after all, all about the money. But, for crying out loud, write a fair review if you take the time to write one.

Plot: set in the 1920s, an honest officer investigates bombings seemingly connected to the political atmosphere during that period.

5,9 (8th June 2015) seem high. However, it is not as bad as 1/10, neither as good as 9/10. An average 5/10 is more fitting.

Period movies are always interesting, no less so for a historian like me, and always a break from futuristic and contemporary movies.

Now, this movie has way too many subplots and characters for its own good. what is worse, none of them has depth, the makers fails to make the viewer root for the hero or feel disgust for the villain. Mainly because there is no real hero or villain. To me this movie feels like a dramatized documentary like Captain Cook: Obsession and Discovery (2007).

Hardened actors like Strathairn and Wise try their best, but seem constrained by budget, less good actors and poor writing.

The action scenes are very poor at best, especially the man to man fighting scenes.

Anti- or pro-Russia propaganda? In my view you may consider both. however, I choose to go for the middle way and root for justice by honest methods.

I may seem to crash down on this movie totally, so why 5 out of 10? Well, regardless of genre, I have seen much much worse than this. And it is not all that bad. The setting is believable, i.e. costumes, location- and studio shots. The main plot IS interesting although not fully explored nor masterfully executed.

I give it 5 out of 10 because it is a decent attempt to make period movie. it is not the first choice for a Friday night, but it will pass the time, truly a made-for-TV kind of film

Zarra's Law (2014)

a routine but feel good mafia movie

[6/10 · 1 March 2015]

I felt obliged to Review this Movie since there is none to be read at this Point which is a let down, it deserves one I Believe.

Plot: retired detective with blood ties to the mafia rattles the neighborhood Cage when he discovers that his Brother's killer gets an early release from prison.

This Movie seems to have slipped through the cracks, which is a shame because it is really good. Now, this a routine mafia Movie but it has more layers than, say, Goodfellas. Although Goodfellas is much better it is still, storywise, quite thin. Zarra's Law has a lot going on with lots of interesting characters.

Tony Sirico was an excellent choice for the lead, he handles his character really well and puts his experience from several mafia/cop installments (The Sopranos, Goodfellas, Cop land, Gotti) into good use. Brendan Fehr stars as his nephew who returns to the hood, he does his part well as the Young hero, and not to forget, Burt Young as an old time mafia head.

Zarra's Law has a lot going for it: good actors from top to bottom; multiple subplots to enrich the main story; great atmosphere.

Downsides? Well, as mentioned above, it is a routine mafia Movie with less of a surprising ending. But it has high production values which makes you disregard this fact.

It is also a bit too short, Clocks in at 85 min. With such interesting characters and multiple subplots I Think 1 hrs and 40 min would have been better.

What to expect? It is not a God Father type of mafia Movie with lines like "he is sleeping with the fishes", nor is it violent like Casino or the Untouchables, and it does not have the enjoyable lines like in Goodfellas. It is neither, by any means, as good as these Movies.

But Zarra's Law has something of a modern day Boardwalk Empire and N.Y.P.D Blue/Blue Bloods feel to it. Qualitywise it is somewhat less good than The Iceman, Killing them Softly and Stand up Guys, but equal to Mobsters, Billy Bathgate, Hoodlum.

I give it 6 out of 10 due to its feel good touch, plot/subplots and characters.

Guardians of the Galaxy (2014)

pleasant surprise

[7/10 · 15 August 2014]

I first read about this Movie in one of those free Magazines you get in Theatres in Sweden and I remember thinking: "what the hell is this? A cartoon or perhaps a spoof on Avengers?" Then I saw the trailer and studied the cast, hmm...Dave Bautista...in a quite big part in a Movie like this...In the end I felt it is either going to be a downer or pretty good...

Plot: oddballs and outcasts come together to save the galaxy, and so they must keep a ancient and powerful weapon from a bloodthirsty villain seeking revenge.

Guardians of the Galaxy, a sci-fi action Comedy - yes, it tentacles into many genres and surprisingly it works. It is mostly a sci-fi and then split evenly between Comedy and action, a bit like Lethal Weapon (except the sci-fi part).

It Clocks in at 121 minutes and it holds many different settings and stories, almost each one could be a separate Movie. One would like to Think that such a Movie cannot work, but it does. The different settings merge together just fine and do not become the least episodic like, say, Terminator 2, which I love but none the less is very episodic and just loosely connected by the characters "driving" to the next scene. Or why not the Da Vinci Code, where Hanks just seek out clues one after the other.

The plot is very basic and is certainly not the strong Point of the Movie. No, instead it relies on scenographic detail, characters and the high quality of the acting. The surroundings/scenography are very good, and this is important in sci-fi Movies, especially those set in space/other type of World. The only really bad thing is the CGI work on Thanos, the CGI is really bad and very cartoonish.

What surprised me the most was the solid acting, which does not include Chris Pratt. I would not say he was miscast nor being bad, just boring. Lucky for him, he is surrounded by more experienced actors like Zoe Zaldana, Benicio del Toro, Michael Rooker, Glenn Close, John C. Reilly. I have Always liked Rooker, especially in roles where the character is bit crazy, like in the 6th Day. In Guardians of the Galaxy he owns. But the one who surprised and impressed on me the most is Dave Bautista. I haven't seen all his work, but until now I have just liked him, but mostly seen him as a brute or a Sidekick. But here he manages to deliver his lines convincingly, after all he is a "Walking thesaurus". He also succeeds in showing off a comic side. After Riddick and Guardians of the Galaxy I can see him getting good roles, but perhaps not rise as high as Dwayne Johnson.

You don't see this kind of Movie often so it is difficult to say who would like this Movie. But if you like sci-fi, space, Star Trek-esque, Comedy, action and is looking for something "easy" to Watch, meaning, something that does not require a lot of thinking, Guardians of the Galaxy is for you.

I give it 7 out of 10 simply because it is entertaining, fun and well executed.

Hercules (I) (2014)

matinée rubbish

[3/10 · 30 July 2014]

I never learn! 1 + 1 = 2, once again I watched a thrilling trailer and read a decent Review in a respected Swedish newspaper, that handed Hercules 3 out of 5. All in all, I had such high expectations.

Plot: after his legendary 12 quests Hercules leave for Thrace to quell an uprising. But this new task involves more than just smiting some armored crooks...

The Review in the Swedish newspaper mentioned Errol Flynn in relation to Dwayne Johnson, and that Johnson lacks Flynn's matinée abilities. This is quite true, Think Robin Hood (1938) , Captain Blood (1935) and the Sea Hawk (1940), Flynn mastered these types of films, especially that smile of his, full of charm. Well, Johnson lacks this charm. But still he has evolved as an actor, and is, by me at least, no longer considered as a lump of muscles only capable of some cheesy one liners and bashing in heads.

Back to the matinée classification...yes this is definitely a matinée Movie. It took me about 2 minutes into the Movie to realize this. You can hear it in the tone of the voice over, the look/color of the print and the looks of the first crooks to be killed off. It has the mandatory silly, although occasionally good/funny, one liners, lack of depth in Everything, standard plotting. A matinée must at least have charm like Flynn's Movies mentioned above or the Pirates of the Caribbean installments.

Another thing that is missing, which I Think is vital to this type of film, is the fantasy/legend elements. The fantasy elements are present in quite old Movies like Jason and the Argonauts, and new Movies like Clash of the Titans and Immortals. This is a Movie which is built on Greek mythology and this is, on the whole, missing here. Greek gods and creatures would have made the Movie better.

The supporting actors are decent enough, especially my fellow Scandinavians Rebecca Ferguson and Ingrid Bolsø Berdal. Mcshane and Sewell do not disappoint but seem a bit off in this genre. John Hurt is excellent as usual until the end where he starts yelling like a teen getting grounded. The worst miscasting I have seen in years is the casting of Joseph Fiennes, what is he doing here?

This genre, what I call sword and blood genre (although "matinée" itself may be considered being a genre on its own), demands these things because getting your arm chopped off should generate a lot of blood, Think Braveheart and you will know what I mean. I like Clash of the Titans, and yes, it does not have a lot of blood, but it has charm, better actors and generally higher production values instead.

It lacks plot - the story is very thin and has no Eye brow-rising surprises.

However, the scenery is good as well as the armor and weapons.

If you favor matinées and do not crave blood, and like the following Movies: the Legend of Hercules; Pompeii; Clash of the Titans (1 & 2); as well as the Hercules TV series and Xena Warrior Princess, this Movie is for you. Yes, when I Think of it, Hercules: the Tracian Wars is too much TV Hercules to my taste, and is what I Think ticked me off.

Sadly, I won't hand out more that 3 out of 10.

Transcendence (I) (2014)

unsavory at best

[4/10 · 29 June 2014]

Once again Hollywood fails to exploit a fantastic idea for a Movie.

Plot: driven scientists explores the human core and the possibilities of combining mind and computer.

This Movie had such potential, it was ages ago I felt so thrilled by a trailer. but on the other hand, it is not the first time I get fooled by a trailer.

The acting is of blended nature, Rebecca Hall is very good while Depp is on automatic, seemingly just squeezing in an easy part Before moving on to a more exciting Project. However, I was relieved seeing Depp moving away from his, now, patented Alice in wonderland/Charles and the Chocolate Factory/Pirates of the Caribbean style of acting. Great actors like Freeman, Houser and Bettany are wasted or just planted here to lure some fans to the Theatre.

The only thing keeping this Movie from total disaster is the plot and the sfx. Man's fascination for the digital is explored as well as the dangers and possibilities of science, but perhaps most clearly it lifts the question if man has a soul, and if so, is it possible to copy (transcend) it.

Even though the plot is very interesting there are major plot holes. without telling too much, since the government is searching for Caster and is considered a major threat it is odd that the Casters can develop new ground breaking science in quiet and that these are very far off, at best, into the future.

On the whole it was a huge Disappointment, such a waste of talent, Money and story.

I give it 4 out of 10.

Ironclad: Battle for Blood (2014)

your typical revenge movie

[4/10 · 29 June 2014]

Revenge Movies may very well be the most difficult to make interesting because there is not a lot of room for plot twists and other Movie tricks. And this is quite true for Ironclad: battle for blood.

Plot: the squire from Ironclad has grown up and has become a sword for hire. His cousin is under siege by a savage Scotsman who seeks revenge for the killing of his son. The besieged cousin seeks the help of his kin.

The plot is very weak, even for a revenge Movie. One reviewer thought that the dialog was corny and the acting dry. I won't argue against that view, though I find his/her vote (1/10) unfair.

True, the acting is not good but I have seen much much worse. The characters are shallow and uninteresting. The plot is, as mentioned, feeble. There is no "feeling" for the characters which I Think is one of the worst "enemies" of any Movie, if you can't create emotion for the hero, or any character for that matter, the Movie falls flat.

A Movie like this, i.e. relying much on action, a bit of "gore" (for example Braveheart) and a good villain, needs just that to create some degree of interest. It is here Ironclad: battle for blood fails, not in lack of plot or dialog, nor bad acting.

The positives about this Movie, although not strong, is the setting/surroundings, there are some good hack and slash scenes but not much more. The squire talks briefly about his exploits in France, which would have made a better Movie I Believe.

This Movie is truly one of those which are made just because the first one was successful, just to squeeze out those extra pennies.

Compared to other Movies in the genre (i.e. "sword and blood Movies"), Troy, Kingdom of Heaven and Centurion are much much better, it is somewhat worse than Season of the Witch, but equal to Warrior Queen.

The Movie is not good, but Worth 4 out of 10.

Maleficent (2014)

solid acting

[9/10 · 28 May 2014]

Recently there's been an influx in fairytale Movies and television series, i.e. Snow White and the Huntsman and Once Upon a Time, and other fairytale-like Movies, i.e. Oz the Great and the Powerful and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. Most of them have done really well, and much due to charm and people's fondness of traditional good versus evil.

Plot: ambitious servant to the king sees his Chance to become king. Though successful, an evil curse is cast on his daughter...

Maleficent is no different from the above mentioned in style, nor in story. It is less "grown-up" than Snow White and the Huntsman, but darker than Once upon a Time. What separates this Movie from the others is the fabulous acting from every single actor/-ress (well, the major parts anyway).

I have never been a fan of Angelina Jolie nor Sam Riley (Control and Brighton Beach). The former mostly a bimbo with occasional parts in entertaining action Movies, the latter a stiff and boring actor in mostly flat Movies. But boy, do they deliver here!! Jolie's performance is outstanding and you could really see that she enjoyed her part which also is very far from what she has done Before. Riley has also outdone himself. Besides his performance in Control I'd say he's a mediocre actor, but here he has really found a perfect part to portray and manages to find the precise level of acting, meaning, neither over nor under acting.

Elle Fanning is Young and will have a fantastic career, she is really good here and her smile is a killer and really captures the innocent girl/princess.

Charlto Copley is a tricky actor. His style is weird and sometimes he is good and sometimes he is bad. Here he is somewhere in between and does not manage to convince, I feel he might be somewhat miscast.

Now I have said a lot about the acting, and this not without a reason. Maleficent skyrockets much due to the acting. The story is much too common and much of the details have been borrowed from Once Upon a Time.

The CGI work is really good and the details in the fairyland are top class.

I can't give it 10 out of 10 because it lacks that last bit which make a Movie a masterpiece.

If you like fairytale-like Movies like the ones I mentioned above you will enjoy Maleficent.

I give it 9 out of 10. I hope Jolie gets more serious parts now, she deserves it after her performance here.

Sleepwalkers (1992)

Horror movies are not what they used to be

[7/10 · 4 May 2014]

Nope! Horror of today is not as good as it was 20 odd years ago. Once or twice we see a couple of scary ones like Insidious and the Lady in White. But these type of horror films rely on sound and surprise.

Plot: teen girl gets swept away by the new boy in Town. Only he is not just a boy...

What horror Movies lack today is mood and color. By "mood" I mean the style John Carpenter shows off in his early Movies like Halloween, the Thing, Escape from New York, They Live, Attack on Presinct 13 and Prince of Darkness. It is, of course, difficult to explain "mood", but those of you who know Carpenter's work and/or are horror fans do likely know what I mean. By "color" I mean the tone of the print, it is kind of bleak or dull which adds so much to the mood.

Mood and color is what makes Sleepwalkers so enjoyable, as well as the effects which are good and still hold.

The cast is convincing, the then soon to be Twin Peaks star Mädchen Amick is Lovely, Brian Krause works both as the innocent boy and villain. Ron Perlman appears as well, he hasn't changed a bit since then, neither his acting nor looks.

There are a couple of goofs, illogical moves and bad acting from some of the cast.

Sleepwalker is one of the better King adaptations I have seen. Much better than the terrible the Langoliers, just as good as Salem's Lot, slightly below Pet Sematary and the Dead Zone.

I give it 7 out of 10 due to mood, color, high production values and its compact storytelling, i.e. there is no dull moments slowing down the story.

Universal Soldier: Day of Reckoning (2012)

confusing at best

[5/10 · 3 May 2014]

I have followed this installment from the beginning with great enthusiasm, but this fourth film in the series was a huge let down, this one is by far the weakest link.

Plot: Deveraux is working to dismantle the government and he is using the UNISOL-program to his advantage. However, the government is continuously updating the UNISOL-program and their tactics, and so Deveraux is finding their latest trick quite hard to combat.

I might call myself a traditionalist when it comes to character and plot development. Although you may fill in the blanks on your own, the fourth film should have been about Deveraux and how he got to where he is in this Movie from the third Movie.

I wrote above that this Movie is the weakest link, why? Well, a solid link with the other Three Movies is all but missing. Movies 1 to 3 has a clear, linear and natural Connection to each other, this fourth one is almost only connected by name and a few random threads.

What is missing too is the explaining of the development of the UNISOL-program. And why this stubbornness of using characters from previous Movies (well, besides Selling more tickets that is)? The fighting scenes are terrific although they are completely in the wrong order. Shouldn't the best one be saved for last? Final Words then, a fifth Movie is in order to wrap up the loose ends.

Although a big let down, I still give it 5 out of 10 because I like the theme of super humans.

House of Good and Evil (2013)

taking the easy way out

[4/10 · 16 December 2013]

If I have to choose one genre I choose horror, and as a fan of horror I obviously Watch a lot of horror Movies. Furthermore, as a fan of horror you cannot really have high expectations in general because horror Movies are what they are.

That said, you still expect some degree of quality when you read about the plot and find it interesting, but boy was I disappointed with House of Good and Evil.

Plot: married couple relocates to the countryside trying to salvage their marriage after a tragic loss of their unborn Child.

Many horror Movies have low to medium budget and the creators succeed in various degrees to put out a nice package. This Movie has a "nice package". It is well made, has an intriguing title, decent actors. But...in the end it is quite a bore. The ending is a total disappointment and the writer, to me, probably ran out of gas or suffers from limited imagination.

The title was promising, I expected a totally different turn-out, to be frank, the turn-out was negative. I cannot really write what I expected because then I would spoil the Movie for you.

Negative is also the pacing, in the beginning the "horror" comes on too strong and a bit too early, and after those initial horrific elements they die out and are left hanging and unexplored. Some might classify this as being a red herring and thus being somewhat clever. However, I say you cannot stray too far away from your initial horror elements which should convey where the Movie is going. So...the initial build-up does not equal the ending which I also Think is boring and shows signs of bad imagination and taking the easy way out.

I still give it 4 out of 10 because it has decent actors, standard production values. Qualitywise it is like Whisher, the Unborn, Prophecy 4 & 5, although not of the same sub-genres.

The Counselor (2013)

underrated....massively

[8/10 · 27 November 2013]

Say what?!!! 5,9 at IMDb (2013-11-27) a very low rating along with a lot of critique on lengthy dialog, NOT FAIR AT ALL.

This is a fantastic Movie. sure, the dialog borders on being stage material, but for all who love great dialog and semi philosophy this Movie is a shining, golden nugget signed off by Scott and a fantastic line-up.

Plot: greedy and luxury loving attorney goes to bed with a Mexican cartel.

Now, the plot is not original. An everyday man wants more Money and turns to the wrong people. What Movies, today, are truly original? not many. when making Movies today and especially in this genre/storyline you must tread carefully and try to create interesting characters and get the right actors and a interesting and detailed surrounding. And this is exactly what the creators have done.

Brad Pitt is outstanding although in a minor role, Fassbender delivers a solid performance as usual, all topped with great actors in small parts, Bruno Ganz (der untergang) as a Diamond dealer in Amsterdam and John Leguizamo (Land of the Dead) as a smalltime crook in Chicago for example.

The Movie is filled with Matrix-style semi philosophy Worth pondering on and great and colorful dialog.

On the downside is the unoriginal plot and the somewhat predictable tying-up the loose ends part and the ending of the characters. BUT, listen up folks: do not take the critique of the dialog seriously, it is magnificent and is not at all slowing down the pacing of the Movie. However, if you are dead serious about formula one tempo in a Movie...sure, you might find the Counselor somewhat slow, but NOT intimidating or negative at all.

I give it 8 out of 10. To me, the Counselor is definitive buying-on-DVD material. In all, the quality of the Movie is like Traffic, Savages, Payback.

Mud (2012)

Great American trend kill

[9/10 · 20 November 2013]

Swashbuckling Hollywood once again delivers Grade A drama.

Say what you will about American Cinema, but twice during a short period of time they have given us Prisoners and , now, Mud, which both are fantastic dramas and doing so they show that Hollywood is not only about bombastic comic heroes and what not.

Plot: two Young teenagers discover the harsh truth about people, Life and what adulthood might give. The two of them stumble upon a stranger on a small Island in some sort of backwater river area. They befriend him but in doing so they get entangled in his past.

Although not a horror Movie, watching Mud made me Think about Stand by me and It which both are great Movies about the friendship among a Group of kids. The friendship between Ellis and Neckbone is Beautiful to Watch and the two Young actors may have great careers ahead of them although far from every Young actor continues to deliver in adulthood. The father, portrayed by Ray McKinnon, is so underrated, his performance is excellent. Likewise is that of Michael Shannon, whom I did not favor some years ago, but now, through Boardwalk Empire and Man of Steel, I see him as a multilayerd and talented actor with the ability, too, to have more serious parts. The most surprising casting, and a positive one at that, was the casting of Paul Sparks as the crook. In Boardwalk Empire he portrays the weird Mickey Doyle, and WOW his very different part here blew me away, by this I do not mean that his small part in Mud is Oscar material, but just positively surprising.

Multilayerd is also the different subplots, which also are the Movie's strength. There's the friendship between the kids, the kids and the stranger, Ellis' somewhat troubled family situation, the stranger's dysfunctional relationship with his girl and his dilemma which has sprung from that relationship.

One of the downsides, and perhaps the only one Worth mentioning, is that it is somewhat predictable, even down to the details. But that is outright disposable because this is a great drama.

If you liked Winter's Bone you will enjoy this Movie, Mud is just as fascinating and interesting, however not quite as dark.

I give it 9 out of 10 due to its thick plot, excellent casting, the creators' ability to excite and care for the characters. This is truly a must see-movie!! The Movie is very Deep and is perfect as a study Project, and it made me reminiscing my own childhood.

Sunshine (2007)

suspense in space

[8/10 · 11 November 2013]

I suppose that man has Always reached for the stars and wondered what is out there.

Besides figuring out how to travel long distances in space I guess Another great challenge is how people adjust (or not) to being totally isolated in space, cramped together with a small crew (i.e. not meeting Another soul for months and months, not being able to disconnect from your surroundings when needed and above all being light years away from any rescue if something goes South).

Plot: a small crew is on their way to our fading star (the sun) to kick start it with Atomic bombs to save Earth. A previous mission failed, no one knew what happened...until now...

Sunshine could have turned out to be slasher or monster Movie set in space, luckily the Movie builds instead on suspense, psychological pressure and somewhat realistic incidents. Although the main plot is highly unlikely the creators and the actors manage to deliver a believable Movie.

The interiors of the space Crafts are well made, the acting is good, you care about the characters, it is suspenseful and the different reactions to what is happening as well as the characters of the Movie having different personalities makes the Movie interesting and exciting.

This is not a horror Movie, so if you expect nasty aliens killing off the crew...do not Watch this Movie. If you liked Event Horizon and Cargo you will enjoy this one, if you liked Alien/Aliens and/or Soliaris...well...this one will be a major disappointment for you.

I give it 8 out of 10 because of its high production values and its suspense.

The Newsroom (2012– )

Tarantino without the cursing

[10/10 · 13 October 2013]

without putting myself on a pedestal, I figure my general knowledge to be quite good, and I follow what's going on in the World and in the US in particular (although not on a fanatical level). with that said, I understand all the puns and irony made by the characters in the Newsroom.

Plot: every day drama about the intrinsic work at a TV-station in America.

What makes this series so great is that is centered on, mostly, on real Life events/news. Obviously it slacks behind because it is impossible to make a series about news of the day.

The dialog is out of this World a I laugh my head of watching each episode. Back to the puns and the irony, the ironic comments from the character Will in particular (played by Jeff Daniels) is brutally funny and the irony is just over the top. You might say it is Tarantino dialog without the cursing. Aaron Sorkin rules the World of TV. too bad his Studio 60 on the sunset strip got put down, a real shame.

I give this series 10 out of 10 because it is just brilliant. It is pure drama, so if you prefer/only Watch suspense or horror stay away. If you like Tarantino's Movies...well, what are you waiting for?!