Change Your Image
increator
Reviews
Flyboys (2006)
Disappointment, what else?
Seriously, this movie is just a piece of expensive trash.
Only thing really worth looking is probably the beautiful scenes of nature and nice places & people around. Photography is simply gorgeous! But wasn't this movie about WAR?
Well, computer-generated war, without real dialogue or matter to discuss, idea to present, etc. Just 3D models and characters suitable for girly Sunday soap opera, not hard-boiled war movie.
Even if it tries simply to be digital form of art and nothing else (I wouldn't call this a thriller or typical war movie of any kind), it fails also. I won't start with factual errors, they're clear to anyone ever opened history book. But the CGI... It's horrible.
First, the CGI scenes don't look that good at all. For a 2006 movie, they seemed to use technology from year 2000 or so. The plane models don't have really any complex shading or any other modern light simulation applied, so everything looks even worse than a typical PC video game from same year. There's also heavily noticeable lack of realistic shadows. But this is not the worst part.
Planes are extremely overpowered and feel like something Man hasn't built yet. Like superb aero-acrobatic devices even our modern technology can't do. It looks nice, but hey, wasn't this movie about WWI? Shouldn't those... things be a pieces of wood and cloth with a small engine applied? Simply motorized kites? But even that total mess-up in CGI and directing department isn't the worst part.
The worst question is... where's PHYSICS? If CGI department would have recorded a demo from early 1994 flight simulator and used movement capture of game planes for ones seen in movie, they would get at least half of it believable. But in this movie, planes float. They have no mass or friction, no speed nor gravity. And in era of motorized kites, tiny amounts of speed and angles defined by physics law was what really decided who won the dogfight. It was all about pilot playing on the edge of plane's capabilities, milliseconds and laws on nature to gain this tiny, almost invisible advantage over enemy. No pilot had 360-degree freedom in 3 dimensions at constant speed. In this movie, it doesn't matter if pilot rises or drops plane, it doesn't lower or raise his speed a bit.
And there's a terribly stupid scene with protagonist's gun jamming while enemy is at gunpoint. Just look at this: When enemy notices the problem, he speeds up and flies away. Why in the hell was he flying at gunpoint until then? Weren't German planes much faster and more maneuverable? Doesn't EVERY damn historical air battle-related book describe this?
I won't even start with "romance" and "drama" portions from the movie. The unbelievable fights (to any sane man) and pretty actors already defined the target group of the movie: early teenage girls. So it's needed by default, even if it sucks in this movie. But why is the chosen topic war and why not skip all that lousy plane thing, just make another movie about nice nature and love?
And why, oh why did director do strange attempts at discussing something serious, like racism, social classes, mourning, war refugees, etc? Either one of them... failed miserably.
It's simply difficult to blame a movie for being bad if it's actually idiots' fault who made it.
Shooter (2007)
Below any averages
I walked into cinema with heavy skepticism. Like going to see a Steven Seagal movie or so.
Few minutes and bad CGI later, protagonist lets his spotter determine target and fires his heavy caliber sniper gun at a convoy. In almost empty cinema room, with loudspeakers at max, this was simply the best part of the movie. It was, well, really-really cool.
Then a chopper arrived. And rest?
Rest was utter dropping of a large male domestic animal.
I never liked Mark Wahlberg, mostly because of his looks and character. He played quite well... though it's hard to be sympathetic to whiny 45-years old boy face like his. Well, at least he does what he's paid for, and some scenes turned out very well.
What didn't turn out so well was making him a Rambo. A shooter? A SHOOTER? A shooter is a silent man miles away, bringing instant, painful death via large smoking hole in the head. Not overgrown kid running around with guns blazing... In last case, I'd prefer a robot from the future or one true overgrown kid - Sylvester Stallone. The one who actually fits into this role and is a cute killing machine.
The scenes with house in the mountains (so MacGyver) and killer pulled into killing without him wanting this is a very special trademark of EVERY S.Seagal movie, and it could describe intro random movie of his. You knew that, didn't you. And this even isn't one of his films!
Few nice scenes aside, I don't really recommend this movie to anyone.
I don't think that there's many bad movies. .. There's a horrible cast, especially lead role. This is definitely one of those movies.
Nimed marmortahvlil (2002)
It is what it was
To rate this movie fairly, you have to know near non-existing Estonian cinematography and how underfunded it is.
This particular movie, built up to pure shock value, accomplishes its mission extremely well. There's no clear story, time-line or explanation to most of things - and that's what the Civil war was - big confusion, fear and terror. The actors, young as they are, play very well, they act just like they're supposed to act - pure, childish and confused. I think that older, professional actors wouldn't portray those characters that well.
Don't expect anything Western here, it's a movie about particular thing and stays in its frames. All Nüganen's attempts to incorporate something Hollywoodish fail miserably here and that's probably only bad thing about this movie - the fact that he sometimes tried.
For an Estonian or maybe even Scandinavian, it's a must-see. For others, clear your mind and open yourself to something different, or you'll be disappointed.
Empire (2002)
Whatever...
I've seen this movie twice. And it didn't get any better second time. It's a mix of separate story elements, which, if used correctly, could make a plot alone. Here, neither of them works. Not the street wars, grand hoax or "getting out from crime life" element.
The movies with big con-man have interesting twists and element of surprise. None here. The ultimate thief turns out to be just a greedy nerd. Usually, the street wars movies or action thrillers overall, are THRILLING. The pace should be up! Here, the slow motion effect is used to make it look more stupid, as girly headache generator music plays and there's enough of blood to make everything look like horror movie parody. It's simply girly. Stupid, unrealistic and not intense at all. I prefer real ballet with real dancers instead of fat gangsters with guns. And getting out of crime life theme, even if it fits here, is played out so lousily and unbelievably as anything could.
So basically, the movie stinks. Unless you like the awful soundtrack and women with proportions of a duck.
Out of Reach (2004)
Unless you get it free, skip it
Steven Seagal? in 2004? After noticing that Mr. Seagal is starring, I somewhat automatically knew that there will be bone breaking in fights. Boy was I right. In every damned Seagal movie, he breaks someone's fingers, feet or neck. That's the main reason I hate Seagal's random-plot lot's-bad guys random-content great-final-fight formula movies. They have no soul or point either. Just an excuse to break some bones in clumsy, painful, uncool way.
It wasn't cool in 1994, when plot less action movies were replaced with ones that had some good idea behind the plot, and today, It just feels awfully old. The movie also features 2 female actors - both quite sympathetic, a villain (played by Matt Schulze and quite well for this role), and an emotionless kid who feels even worse than Seagal himself. I won't comment on plot: there is no one. At least not enough to believe . Also, It feels like writer got tired at the middle and quickly wrapped things up, It takes some time to even understand what's going on.
Seagal was never my favorite, because of how he looks and feels. This is no hero I would like, just a big, angry old man with angry mug and fat belly, still in 80's with his hair and clothing. Nothing sympathetic or witty ever comes from him.
If I wanted to see plot less action like this, I'd choose randomly a movie from Jackie Chan or Jet Li. At least they offer some nice characters, wacky humor and incredible acrobatics. But a man who is only able to give one-liners, crack bones and deliver head-butts is nothing than a waste of millions of dollars.
Tears of the Sun (2003)
Exciting!
Well, for start, the movie uses a really simple formula in most of it: One REAL and cheap punch into face is better than fireworks worth of $100000.
This works pretty fine, in most cases, too. A subject that shakes people out of their normal life, and the way it's shown - gives movie a lot of tense. Movie shows some horrid scenes where much is not shown, but left for imagination... which usually amplifies the effect. Like screams from a village under attack, fast clips from bird's eye view upon a destroyed settlement, a sea that's turned red...
"Can such things happen in our world at present day? Right now? Somewhere... there?" This is what shocks and people don't feel so safe anymore when turning off DVD player or walking home from cinema after the movie.
From drama side, movie is extremely strong. It's story and how it's implemented - is so well done that it covers almost all shortcomings in realism, battle scenes and acting. At the introduction documentary(?), where riots run around the town and scenes of solider beating a child make a good job pulling you into shocking and intense movie. And after watching the movie, you are not thinking about what was wrong, but still about the parts that shook you. Yet, there's some occasions, where things look funny, and that doesn't fit very well.
Realism gets strong hit here, there's way too little of realism. Especially, since it's a war-movie (sort of) and weapons & battle deserve more details here.
For example, 9 soldiers battling against 300+? Or the scene where hundreds of enemies just rushed towards bullets without making a single shot? The soldiers themselves carry way too much weapons, and they're way too pointless in this environment, especially since soldiers knew well where they're heading. Why carry a shotgun in the jungle? Safari? Or two assault rifles, LAW, sniper rifle and a pistol all at the same time? The armament most likely covers all modern weaponry, and whole of this mass is fit onto 9 people -- sent to a mission for 1 day, with no orders to engage a battle...
The decisions in situations are also very unbelievable.
At some point, movie starts to look more like a documentary or a soap opera - most time there's just actors' face closeups that are seen.
But this all mixed with very emotional scenes, superb sound effects and very, very good musical background make so much atmosphere that you will be most definitely sucked into the movie, and It's definitely worth a look.