Kefka_8203 Reviews

Skyline (2010)

Those who claim this movie is intelligent, aren't.

[1/10 · 31 May 2011]

I'm not quite sure if I have had a large amount of bad luck as of late, or if I should just stop watching movies, but with Skyline I think my "Horrible movies of the year"- quota has been filled to the brim and then spilled over. Skyline is the latest "masterpiece" from the Strause Brothers, or pardon me, The Brother's Strause... Waking up one night a group of "friends" are subject to the sight of hundreds of thousands of people being sucked into giant spaceships hovering above LA. In any decent movie this is where things would turn interesting or at least exciting; not in Skyline, oh no. Here we're subjected to a bunch of the most unlikeable characters sitting in a a guy's "luxury apartment" before they decide to try and head out; which entails the black guy who cheated on his girlfriend and his mistress to go in the same car. Really The Brother's Hacks? Couldn't you be a bit more obvious? I'm not sure the blind kid ten blocks down got it! Guess who bites the dust? Oh yes, the black guy(black people shouldn't think they're allowed to live in a horror movies) and the mistress.

Running in panic after trying* to kill one of the attacking aliens the group once more return to the "luxury apartment" and decide to sit there with their newfound Cuban friend. *:Trying as in; The thing can regenerate itself due to having an extra brain or some nonsense, it's a recurring thing in the movie. Now, the main character , Jarrod, has by now been staring into the Bright Blue Light of Brain-killing twice...And he's starting to act oddly, or he would could the actor actually act rather than behave like he's mildly grumpy about not getting his man-diapers changed. His girlfriend, after seeing the deaths of countless thousands(probably millions.) breaks into a hysterical fit after the girlfriend of the black dude starts to smoke; apparently it's very important to remember that second-hand smoking hurts the unborn child of Miss Hysterical(what I'll call her from now). The Cuban dude, who's by far the best actor by now, just stares dumbfounded at her...I did too.

The Us Government attacks, nukes the ship which regenerates and then sends in cannon-fodder.

Okay, fast forward; Blond girlfriend lady dies, Cuban blows himself up. Miss Hysterical screams and Mr Man-Diapers kill an alien with his bare hands, a piece of concrete and help from Miss H. They get sucked into the big spaceship, Man-Diapers get turned into an alien, kicks other alien's butt to save Miss H and then ending credits roll.

To sum it up before I go on further; This is the worst, the dumbest and the most annoyingly inept movie I've seen in years, it beats out The Other Guys, Avatar the Last Airbender, Moby Dick 2010, Clash of the Titans 2010 and many, many more as probably the worst movie I've seen since Leprechaun in the Hood. The fact that these two bozos get any jobs, or that their movies can make roughly six times their budget saddens me more than knowing Uwe Boll can continue to make movies. That people can call this flawed piece of trite intelligent or good sci-fi is a bit like calling Twilight as good as Romeo and Juliet; it might technically be an opinion but it's coming straight from your a**.

What is wrong with it then, in detail:

1; The Actors. When the best actor in your ensemble is the guy from Scrubs playing his character from Scrubs without JD then you're tough out of luck. And since he's black and cheats he's pretty much a walking corpse. When the second best actor is a guy who can't decide whether he's completely loony or if he's just trying to survive and going for the middle road of "I'm a Complete Loony who Tries to Survive in a Soap Opera." A very classy performance there. The other cast, compromised of three bimbos, an old man and a middle-aged couple with some red-shirts in the background. The three main girls are bland, bland and horrible. Horrible is reserved for Miss Hysterical, who's so horrible that I don't think even the porn industry deserves her. Oh, and I almost forget the Strong Manly Protagonist, Jarrod. The actor is horrible at what he does and can't portray emotion.

The Plot: While I can understand the "You don't stand a chance against aliens of this magnitude"-thing, it's dull and wannabe-edgy rather than handled well. The aliens are annoyingly stupid and their threat comes from one weapon that gives people superpowers if they avoid it, and from the Strause's decision to have them be invulnerable due to a Deus Ex Machina power that lets them regenerate EVERYTHING. Honestly, it's written so badly that you don't even get to root for the bad guys like you can do in most B-movies.

Music: Generic, low-budget action flick stuff. Most of the time I didn't realize there was a musical score.

Looks: Decent, as long as the things aren't shown up close or interacting with people, then it looks like crap.

Rating: A resounding ZERO out of ten. I hate the Brothers Pretentious for creating this piece of crap. I hate myself even more for watching it.

The Other Guys (2010)

Probably the worst movie I've ever seen(Mainstream)

[1/10 · 30 January 2011]

If there's one thing I grow tired of it's people posting a "Worst Movie Ever!!!!" thread in pretty much every forum on IMDb. No matte whether it's Avatar, The Godfather or Transformers, it's apparently the worst thing put on celluloid. With statements like that you need to consider some things; Amongst others; What are your guidelines? For example, I absolutely consider the Twilight movies amongst the worst pieces of crap ever made, but they are masterpieces compared to the Asylum/Syfy movies that are constantly spewn out...Does that make them good movies? No, horrible movies but ones that needs to be measured a bit differently.

With that said. I hate The Other Guys, and it's one, if not THE worst mainstream movie I've ever seen. It's misogynistic, crude, stupid, pointless, annoying, badly written and with acting that would embarrass a Porn Actor.

When you have seven good actors in this movie(Keaton, Wahlberg, Jackson, Johnson, Mendes, Coogan and Stevenson) and you kill of the two who could have brought some fun into this movie within ten minutes(Jackson and Johnson) you better damn well make sure your replacements are up to it. Guess what? They aren't. Wahlberg can be excellent, but here he's whiny and with the emotional range of Seagal. "I'm a peacock! Let me fly!" Yeah, dude...If you're as homophobic as you pretend to be...Lay off that comparison. It's stupid. Ferrell...If there is another comedian as unfunny as him this side of Vince Vaughn and Owen Wilson then humanity is in deep sh*t. Nothing he says, does or tries to get across is funny. His acting is "ISpeakWithAMonotonousVoiceLikeThisHaHa" or "BLARGHABLBLAAAA!/#""!!!!" . Stevenson is surprisingly adept as the violent bad guy in the movie, I just wish he'd shot the Other Guys when spotting them. Mendes is...Urgh, a supermodel hottie who takes verbal abuse from her husband and smiles...And shows him her tits to motivate him at work. Keaton, oh poor Keaton...Why? Why are you in this?

The "Comedy": The only thing I giggled at is the vulgar crudeness of the hobos having an orgy in the car, and the dedication they show to do it again. It's stupid and pre-teen stuff, but it is just too idiotic not to chuckle at. Pretty much every other joke doesn't fall flat...It smashes through the ground, yodeling while doing so.

Action: ...It's a stupid, silly action comedy. Macguyver had better stuff than this.

Story: Inept, silly, stupid. Words that sound familiar by now? They should. The plot isn't really there, it's mostly trying to find somewhere to sneak in in between a mix of stupid scenes.

Overall: I hate the guys who made this movie, I hate the actors for being in it and I HATE the pretentious sods who gave this move such high a score. You make even Uwe Boll cry!

Avatar (2009)

Avatar; Cameron's new

[10/10 · 14 January 2010]

Sometimes, you are lucky when you go to the cinema. You find a movie which entertains you, or which you find surprisingly good. Maybe it's a movie which you heard was bad, maybe it's a movie you hoped was good. In the end it'll be your opinion that matters. When I heard about Avatar a few years back I wrote it off, as it had Signourey Weaver and Michelle Rodriguez in it, neither of which I hold very warm feelings for these days. And into my "I'll rent it or something like that in a few years"-binge it went. Then I saw the trailer on the TV; and BANG it got my curiosity up. I stayed away from any online review or forum regarding it, as I wanted to see it with an open mind.(Open as in beyond; "Wow this looks cool.")

And let me tell you, I am happy I did see it!

Avatar is James Cameron's latest movie, a man who seems content with releasing movies that are at the very least good(True Lies) to mind-boggingly awesome(Terminator 2, the Abyss). Avatar squarely enters the latter category and then jumps up a notch.

To summarize the plot; Mankind has spread out into the universe, and on the planet Pandora they have found a mineral that supposedly is quite valuable. The valuable resources on Pandora looks up for grabs if not for the annoying natives, the Na'vi, or "The People" in their own language. These blue-skinned tribals seem to disagree with a massive corporate resource-grab of their world. The main character is the marine Jake, wheelchair bound and sent to Pandora as a replacement for his murdered brother who was to take part in the Avatar-project, the last peaceful means to get the Na'Vi to move out of the way of the Corporate forces. From Jake's first steps(literally speaking) on Pandora to to the last minutes of the movie it's a beautiful image that is painted in front of your eyes, and the story and characters are gripping and well-crafted in the way few but Cameron can deliver. Jake's journey from a gung-ho marine mercenary to a leader of the Na'Vi will quite literally suck your breath away, as even with some predictability the movie contains that special something to keep you glued to your seat.

Now, let me repeat myself here; this movie is a masterpiece. The visuals are outstanding, the soundtrack much more enjoyable than I'd expect and the characters are either likable or completely fitting in their villainous role. Even Rodriguez' character comes across as well-acted. The romantic subplot is, strangely enough, good. It seems that Cameron knows how to add that as well into a movie without it feeling forced. I am not sure where the hatred comes from, but I'd dare to guess it's from online critics and certain sub-par satirical cartoons which makes a name for themselves to go against the mainstream, even if it means that they're wrong.

In the end, the best way to make up your mind; See it. If you then don't like it then at least you've been honest enough to give it a try rather than listening to a sad bunch of people that just ant you to follow their every wor.

The Dark Knight (2008)

A most personal opinion. May contain spoilers and cute fuzzy ponies.

[5/10 · 14 February 2009]

And thus it has been watched; one of the most talked about movies of latter years. The crowning achievement of Nolas career and the apex of Heath ledgers movie history. So is it worth the praise? Does it live up to the expectations set? In short, no. In long: Noooooooooooooooo. The Dark Knight should, at heart, be about Batman and his eternal nemesis the Joker. But Nolans uneven film-making assures this is not the case; The movie has more subplots than three full seasons of "Days of our Lives"; and most of the subplots feels as relevant as that show. To put it simply: This movie tried to put too much into too short a time. To move on to more specific details: The story has enough plot holes to sink Titanic; How does the Joker finance his operations when he seems unwilling to use cash? How does he get an army of loons to work as a cohesive and highly fanatical religious unit? How does he smuggle vast amounts of explosives onto two boats and one hospital? Another weak point is bad acting and just stupid plot movement; Bale is excellent as Bruce Wayne, he is however horrible as Batman. His completely hilarious attempt at distorting his voice sounds like a severe case of throat cancer. It is of little consequence however as he's delegated to the role of sidekick anyway. The actor who played Harvey Dent is in the long run pointless; He is of TV-quality and can't handle his role .Then again, he does it better than Tommy Lee Jones did. Gary Oldman has something of a broken look over him; he seems to wish out of the movie as soon as possible. Michael Caine as Alfred isn't that good compared to the old Alfred, but he suffices. Morgan Freeman does what he does best; Speaks with an authoritative voice.

And now..To the name of the movie: Heath Ledger, who's untimely death has elevated him to the sort of cult status only death celebrities gets. WHich is unfortunate for while he was a good actor his role here is NOT that good. His version of the Joker is decent, but looses itself in some sort of misguided attempt at realism. In the end the only thing it manages to come across as is boring. The Joker is realistic, and yet gifted with overwhelming superpowers which allows him to do pretty much everything he sets his mind too. And I mean anything; Build up a criminal empire strictly on IOU notes? Check. Smuggle several tons of explosives into what one can be assumed is heavily guarded ferries? Check. Do the same to a major hospital? Check. Convince the man who's wife to be he just murdered brutally that he isn't responsible because he's just "A dog"? Check. Damnit, this guy could probably convince Batman that he really does have feelings for Robin.

Overall TDK is a uneven movie: It is hampered by poor acting, lousy effects and a horrible script. But it has some bright spots in mood and overall theme. In the end, it isn't enough and I cannot for the life of me understand why this movies is hailed as the second coming of Christ.

Transformers: Animated (2007– )

Not what I had hoped it to be. *Spoilers Ahead*

[7/10 · 17 March 2008]

Well then, a pop-culture phenomenon enters the stage again, with a blockbuster movie and a lackluster cartoon. I am not quite sure where things go wrong these days, as the TF cartoons after Beast Machines and Beast Wars have been so bad as to make watching them a physically painful event. Armada was decently animated, but the humans combined with mecha-Pokémon's annoyed more than they helped the show. Energon was pretty much abyssal with it's human hero being a typical Japanese animation "brash hero" type. Cybertron was the kind of thing you play at Guantanamo to get a confession out of people.

Then comes Transformers: Animated. I've gotten the notion that people love this show, which only confirms what seems to be a cultural handicap amongst some western viewers: That if it is from japan, or at least mostly influenced(red: Ripoffed) from Japanese animation it is inherently superior in some mystic way. because you know, it's totally cool with preteens saving the universe with superpowers while they also attend to college. Back on track then.*coughs* TF:A is a show heavily influenced by Teen Titans, a show that at least was watchable as it depicted superheroes and super-villains. Transformers is pretty much the same show, only with big mecha Pokémon's along and a preteen girl running around wielding the "All-Spark"...Which of course s in the shape of a car-key...Of course.*brain implosion*

The quality of the cartoon is probably good, if you can stand the style, which I by the way, cannot. It's lackluster and childish. The mood of the show is so confused it should get professional help..is it a show about superheroes and super-villains? Or a show about aliens battling it out? is it a serious show with brutal action, betrayal and such? or is it a show that should replace Barney the dinosaur? The greatest consistency is to make the Autobots look like advanced toys and let those toys battle it out with the kind of super-villain you think would be cute in a movie or show making a parody of DC COmics. Highlights like Meltdown (cuz..he melts stuff..both himself and others...), Headmaster(cuz'...He dresses as a Galactus reject and builds a head that is supposed to sit on robot bodies...) and Angry Archer. (guess what he does...) Seriously, this show takes such a huge step backwards Im ashamed. People whine and b*tch about how the humans in the movie got too much place. Then same people come here and praise this train-crash of a show? That's hypocrisy people.

I would give it a lower rating, but at times it shows promise...or just good character ideas. So maybe, in twenty years more..We can get a decent Transformers show not for the culturally challenged.

Aliens vs. Predator: Requiem (2007)

Death of a trademark? ((May Contain Spoilers))

[4/10 · 10 February 2008]

And here we are, the latest installation in the crossover of two great franchises. I love Predator, and like ALien 1+ Aliens. Alien 3 and Alien:Ressurrection could preferably be counted out from the Alien series. When I was a kid I got my hands of an AvP comic translated into Swedish, and I was hooked. It brought together what I feel is the essence of the two franchises, and added some great stuff. Especially the bad ass heroine that followed in the footsteps of Ripley. From there I tried to buy the AvP comics where I could, and I played both the PC games a lot when they arrived. From these sources I felt as if a great movie could have been made, either using the games "stuck in the middle with you" approach in space, or using the comics which quite often portrayed a strong female lead. AvP; THe movie part one tried to do this with it's main lead and managed to get glimpses of those moments I loved as a kid in. AvP:Requiem however...Fails in every way. The characters are dull to unlikeable, with only the female soldier trying to show some sort of possible background. The setting of the movie is quite interesting I suppose...But doesn't manage to make the pieces fit. It's not survival horror, as the first Alien movie is. It is not kick ass hardcore action as per Aliens...It is not kick ass action/brutal action such as Pred 1+2. Instead it's slasher meets first-person shooter meets Disaster Strikes, which in the end creates a mess of a movie with not real redeeming qualities. THe aliens are ugly and dull, and the predalien and it's tongue-rape abilities bore me. The pred is supposed to be some sort of bad ass "cleaner" but comes across as a inept rookie with a happy trigger finger. The only really fun part of the movie was those few times when I was surprised over the death of a character, like the kid in the beginning or the blonde girl. Overall my advice is: Rent Alien+Aliens and Pred 1+2 and watch them over a weekend. They're a heck of a lot more worth your time.

Eragon (2006)

*Spoilers Ahead* Worse than the book

[3/10 · 4 January 2007]

Well, I assume my opinions on the book is clear enough. I hated it, and part 2 even more so. Nonetheless they were leagues above Eragon:The Movie.

The movie is a bland generic fantasy movie of the kind produced directly to TV/video, think Earthsea or Dragonheart 2.

Now, to attack the problems:

1: Actors A mix between horribly miscast(Hounso, Guillory), to horrible)Speelers, Stone, Malkovich) with some actors trying to do their part(Irons, Carlyle, Hedlund). Weisz did the best part and her voice was nice to listen to. Malkovich proves that he can't do a slightly less serious role without spitting and overacting, while Speelers was probably the worst young actor I've seen since Dakota Fanning. I'm not quite sure why anyone would say that Speelers do a good job, as he's as painful as getting kicked in soft places.

2: Characters. Eragon is a dull character in the books, and in the movie even more so. His ineptitude, which borders on the unbelievable is only surpassed with his annoying habit to try to wriggle out of guilt(Yes Eragon, it was your fault Brom died in the prison. Way to go boyscout. Now take a pill and keep quiet).

Brom: At times Irons managed to get the point across that Brom suffered greatly for loosing his dragon, though most of the time it felt as if he was just trying to play an over-aged Aragon.

Murtagh: Ugh, Legolas with black hair.

Galbatorix: As over the top as Cyrus the Whyrus from Con Air. The finishing sequence when he most likely cut off some flesh from his dragon's snout was fun.

Durza: Quite an improvement over the book. Here he's just mean and disgustingly powerful. His little pet was nice though, and Carlyle is a great actor.

Arya: Dull, and quite more foppish.

3: Effects and script. All money from the budget were put in three things: Saphira as a baby(the cutest thing on screen in a long time), Durza's minion and hiring some ex A-grade actors. Saphira as an adult just looked odd, and I almost laughed every time the Urgals entered the stage. These are the orc-wannabees? THey're ugly over-aged men that got kicked out of Power Rangers. The bug-thingys were annoying as well, as they moved like a Putty from Power Rangers and seemed as terrifying as a retarded piece of rock. Durza's magic was mostly the type you expect to find in shows like Sinbad or Mystical Warriors. And elves have no pointy ears, look identical to humans. Oh, and dwarfs are about as tall as humans(as I assume the Scottish-speaking rebel was supposed to be a dwarf.) The lines were mostly awful, with some standing out like nails driven into you eyes. "Up in the sky, to live or die!". Sounds like a really bad power metal song. Speelers and the producers of the movie should be whipped for that. "Angela has not asked for money" Why in the name of *Insert god of choice* does she refer to herself in third person? Why does she have a shower curtain made of left-over pieces of tinfoil on her? Which moron thought it would be a good idea to allow a fantasy character to have a stainless steel piercing? She looks like a college drop-out.

4: Misc stuff. The battle at the end was about as well-made as the battle of a 14 year old Swedish music video, IE: Bad. Alagesia seems to be a Europe-style nation, with many peasant villages(or so I assume, as we see two villages), then why, pray tell, are most of the rebels either dark-skinned or of what seems desert nomad descent? Tourist rebels?

All in all; Go rent LOTR, or Dragonheart, or Willow. It'll be money well spent compared to this piece of crap.

X-Men: The Last Stand (2006)

A decent flick...*Spoilers Ahead*

[5/10 · 19 July 2006]

So, the time has come to reach the conclusion of the X-Men trilogy. one of the greatest trilogies of the last few years. So how does it fare compared to the older movies? Not so well I am afraid.

The story begins with Xavier and Magneto visiting the young Jean Grey to convince her to join the Xavier School for Gifted Youngsters, then jumps into a near future battlefield(Which feels silly as hell since it's no real issue to figure out that it takes place in the danger room. They should have stopped the simulation the second the rockets flew through people.) Next comes some rather vain attempts at setting the mood of depression that runs through the film, which climaxes with the death of Cyclops at Jean's hands. (Remember boys, don't kiss dead people. They make you go 'poof') A series of what feels like random events leads up to the battle of Alcatraz where 6 X-men are pitted against a horde of evil orchs, oh sorry, I mean Mutants. Then we get Wolverine regenerating damage that up til then has been able to tear hundreds of people into small CGI-looking strips of..:uh...Confetti? Then the movie ends. That's for the movie, now I'll try to sum up some memorable failures.

Jean Grey: Ohhhh gosh...Where to begin? Well, she's clearly intended to be a private fantasy of many pre-teen viewers of the movie more than a plot-device. Oh, and she looks bored through the entire movie, even when trying to have sex with Logan.

The death of Cyclops: Throwing away a character like that feels like a waste, it had been much more interesting to see him pull himself back from depression and lead the X-Men. But at least Jean was nice enough not to ruin his glasses. Nice girl that.

Death of Xavier: ...Ten times worse than Cyclop's death. Silly as heck.

Angel: My thoughts: "Cool, a new mutant" Angel in the movie: "Daddy I dun' wanna*cries* *goes to hide at X-men. Saves Daddy. End of Angel in movie". Get the picture? Unused potential.

Juggernaught: Only really good thing was the casting of Vinnie Jones as Juggernaught, but he gets so little screen time that he can't shine as he did in Lock Stock or Snatch.

Mystique: *blinks*What the? What was her point in the movie? Rogue/Bobby/Kitty: Rogue get upsets and leaves because Bobby seems to be in love with Kitty...Bobby is surprised...And then ignores Kitty when Rogue returns? Real charmer that boy isn't he? Wolverine: Ever seen an old half-dead poodle? That is what Hugh Jackman reminds of in this movie. He seems genuinely tired, not depressed or fatalistic as the char is supposed to be. Just tired.

Storm: Halle Berry is awful as always, though her badness is slightly compensated by the fact that most of the crew is even worse.

Colossus: Unused potential. Need I say more? New Mutants: Cannon Fodder.

Magneto: A rape of the previous movies. They've shown Magneto as utterly ruthless, but deep inside he cares for the Mutant race. Here he acts as disregardful to their lives as the Nazi's he so despises.

Beast:Wonderfully played and a highlight of the movie.

Summary: The movie isn't horrible, or even that bad. Really...It's a decent flick. But you know, the X-Men movies aren't supposed to be decent. They're supposed to be great. So Ratner can go shove his head in a pile of dirt and they can hire Singer again. because there ain't a chance I'll accept this as the last X-Men.

Babylon 5: In the Beginning (1998 TV Movie)

The only good B5 movie so far. But boy, it sure is good.

[8/10 · 17 March 2006]

Another poster here commented that as soon as B5 strays from it's 5-year arc it fails, I agree with that.(Though...truth be told, the pilot episode of B5 was horribly silly as well)

In the Beginning is the story of how the Earth and Minbari went to war, and the stories of many of the people we know from the B5 show, all told by Peter Jurasik as Londo Mollari. A masterful choice since Jurasik has a charisma that to me is only matched by Andreas Katsulas as G'Kar.

From the start the movie is a feast for fans of B5, the great war is explained in all it's horrible stupidity with leaders of both races too arrogant to see their own faults; The humans by sending an armed force of ships to Minbari space when advised against it by Londo "Send only one ship.", their folly is shown when they fire upon a minbari ship and kill the spiritual leader of the Minbari. Though for all their alleged wisdom the Minbari show themselves as prideful as the humans when they set the wheels in motion for total genocide of the human race. With the warrior caste driving it forward the war takes on a life of it's own, as Delenn so eloquently puts it.

It is when the war begins that the real highlight of the movie starts, the 10-or so minutes of eerie scenes of battles and defeats, hauntingly backed up by Christopher Franke's 'Battle on the Line'

So what about the rest of the movie? Well, the actors plays their roles with mostly the same energy as they did in the shows, something which lacks in other B5 movies like Thirdspace. Some of the other characters are quite simply just fillers, the Earth officials that send the Expeditionary force to Minbari space feels too much like the 'crooked politician' to be of any real worth to the movie. The special effects are rather good, on par with the show. The greatest weakness with the movie is the feel that maybe..It is too much flirting with the fans, like "Look! There's all our favorites!", and the fact that I cant' grasp how the war could last for years when the Minbari slice through fleets in seconds. Sure the ground battles could last for awhile but it's hard to have ground battles if the fleets transporting soldiers get shot out of the sky. And it is good to know that even with genocide as their goal the Minbari ignore the civilian populaces.

8/10

Babylon 5: The Legend of the Rangers: To Live and Die in Starlight (2002 TV Movie)

For the love of all that is holy..Why?

[2/10 · 6 March 2006]

When I was younger I had only one show I watched every time it was on the TV; Babylon 5. I came to love that show and now, many years later, I've begun to watch it anew. So when one of the channels showed this movie I recorded it and watched in the following day. The first reaction was ; Why? What? How? For those of you that have watched Babylon 5 I don't need to describe the Rangers, to those of you who haven't; The Rangers are an organization that gathers information and sometimes fight the great enemy in preparation of the coming war. They are mystical, smart, skilled and shrouded in layers of mystery. That's in Babylon 5. The Rangers here are your run-o-the-mill space marines with less IQ than shoe-size. The captain of the ship is for some reason punished for not giving the life of his crew up without reason. THus he's given command of a ship that's supposedly ancient but to me seems to be ten times More advanced than any other ship in the B5 universe. But more on that later. His motley crew is made up of a rough-n-sexy( I think that was what they intended anyway..Didn't work) weapons officer, a Minbari best friend, a Narn who I don't really know what the heck she's supposed to be doing, a Drazi brute/cargo loader. After a big and ugly ship(manned by some other Rangers) is destroyed the crew of the ship is forced to take aboard a bunch of ambassadors, of which one is the legendary G'Kar(brilliantly portrayed by Andreas Katsulas, as always). Then too many long long minutes of boring silliness ensue, the best of which being the completely over-the-top combat scenes with the weapons officer doing some silly martial arts in 3D while the ship spits balls of badly animate plasma at even worse animated pixels. And let's not forget the ghost-subplot..Which isn't a subplot but some kind of awkward "What if". Oh, and gotta love the ending..Instead of having a nice shootout or something we get to see the captain do the same stupid thing he did to blow up the first enemy ship. Original? No. Smart? No. Fun? Nope. Welcome? Yes, only to see this crap end. Beside the things mentioned above the movie has terrible acting, lousy effects, messed up facts about the B5 universe and no real storyline. And for God's sake...Why VR-combat?

Doom (2005)

*Warning, spoilers ahead* How can one fail with this?

[1/10 · 16 January 2006]

Oh by the old gods this was bad...Where to begin? I'm a fan of the original Doom 1+2, and I've never touched part three which I've heard this movie borrows most heavily from. And after this movie I doubt I'll touch it anyway. Doom the movie is the standard "elite soldiers goes into routine mission, everything goes straigth to h*ll", a genre of movies that reached the peak with Predator, part one or Aliens. And due to the difficulty of making a movie worthwhile the makers of Doom decides to make another crap fest. Where to begin? First; The cast. I usually like The Rock, he's got a kind of humorous charm(watch Welcome to the Jungle), in this movie he's horrible though. His character is the usual rough officer that yells a lot, then suddenly in the last twenty minutes or so he goes from caring to psychopathic. The rest of the cast goes from OK(the lead role) to horribly bad( Sam and Portman). The monsters of the movie seem mostly boring, give me the old Doom fiends back and I'll be happy. Though it isn't the crappy action, boring dialogue or pathetic monsters that I feel finally kill this movie off. It's the horrible First-person view that you're forced to endure at the very end of the movie. I'm sure that it sounded cool on paper "Wow, let's do ten minutes of FPV mode and let the viewers think they're part of the movie", problem is; It doesn't work, not one bit. Uh uh. Nope. That sequence felt so dull and slow that I almost fell asleep. Then there's some kind of back story about ancient martians/superthingies, a mode of transportation that is totally left unexplained and a personal story for the lead role that is too cliché to bother with. 1/10 stars.

Black Knight (2001)

I believe a tenth level of hell is needed for bad actors...(mild spoilers)

[2/10 · 9 September 2005]

Alright, first of all I should confess that I like Martin Lawrence about as much as having my fingernails torn out. I found Bad Boys 1+2 to be terrible, despite the reputation of both movies. Then me and my girlfriend decided to rent a few movies from the local videostore...ANd for some reason she picked this one. Story in short: Modern guy travels back to medieval times. Lots of unfunny situations follows. Hero gets it on with "Nubian Princess" while evil Knight-guy goes around being cliché evil. Only fun scene was when ML pulls up his lighter and goes "Behold! I can create fire!" or something similar, and the reaction he gets from the local populace is ; "Yeah? So what? We've seen fire before." And while ML wasn't as horrible in this movie as in BB 1 and 2 he's still painfully bad. To sum it all up I have to say: Stay away from this piece of crap.