I didn't mind this film as a monster movie but as others have said it is not part of the other Leprechaun cannon or films. They clearly just have the same name i.e. Leprechaun' in the title. If you just go into this thinking this is just another b-grade monster flick you may get some enjoyment out of it like I did. There is nothing here that's special but it is not the worst film in the world. Young adults are tormented by a medium size creature from the woods that the locals must please by making sacrifices i.e. the young adults. Overall I liked it and would rate it about 5 stars as it average and there are better b-grade monster flicks out there, this is fairly generic stuff. Acting and creature effects are on par for this type of film and the directing is standard and possibly a bit lazy. It's a one of watch that killed some time.
Reviews
14 Reviews
My Stepmother Is an Alien
(1988)
Predicted the Internet
4 January 2019
Warning: Spoilers
Fantastic 80's flick with Akroyd and Basinger at their best. Anyone in there 40's will remember these type of flicks and when Basinger has to kiss Akroyd, that has to best the future prediction for our society that the internet was coming; i mean Google Kiss, in your handbag lols.. You have a young Willow from Buffy. The pure cheese that was the bedroom scene, Basinger doing the whole slo-mo thing. Got to love we get a ending where the brother literally sacrifices his other brother by letting him go to aliens for a piece of arse; did anyone else think it was suspicious that they all looked like Princess Stephanie, like the aliens knew - kindy creepy ! All round decent 80's flick and some great cheeseeeeeeee !
Explorers
(1985)
God Dam it 6.6 ?
16 November 2018
Has to be one of the most under-rated 80's film ever. Perfect 1985 vibe and story. Why on earth it has a 6.6 review at the time of my post is disgraceful. A VERY young Ethan Hawke and a VERY young River (god bless his god dam soul) Phoenix. I'm disgusted that my generation has allowed this at 6.6. Very heavily criticised for it last third but i loved it. In a world where Stranger Things and IT (2017) get a go, i highly recommend that those that haven't seen this hunt it down and see it. It is so 80's, so fun and so under appreciated - you will have a hard time finding it but it is a gem. For the love of god release this on bluray or 4k. So 3 kids get a signal and travel to it, build a starship, errr, well, a shield that protects a junk pile they build to take them to outer space. It's 80's, it's 'Classic' VHS 80's. 6.6 guys ? Come on...vote it up !
Beneath
(I) (2013)
Low budget rubber fish teen angst TV movie
18 July 2013
Went into this with sort of high expectations. Love a good water monster film and don't mind them low budget. I saw this trailer a while back on You Tube and thought it looked good. Basic premise - characters all with annoying character traits and not that enjoyable to watch end up on a lake with a medium sized fish puppet. Maybe my expectations were too high but the movie doesn't deliver on the trailer.
The creature looked awful and probably the most fake I have seen besides most the creatures on SYFY. They show too many close up, medium and long shots of real bad fish model which clearly looks fake. I appreciate, what looked to be, practical effects over CGI but in this case it didn't help the film. Some of the better scenes with the fish is when it is submerged in the water or a shadow in the water. Its huge eyes look fake as and should have been darker to hide that fake-ness.
The story is unremarkable and the characters, as written, are awful. I feel the actors did their job and no criticisms there - though none shine through. The director, I feel is sloppy as there is no build up for tension in his scenes, he rushes moments that should have levity (most death scenes besides the first girls) and the cinematography is amateurish. The director should have been in control of these aspects. The aspects of having friends making decisions about who to use as fish bait is as stupid as it sounds and comes across like voting for Big Brother. The teen love triangle and angst did leave some room for the actors to emote but again the director I feel didn't push or get the best out of them. The editing and the music was god awful and ruined some aspects of the suspense in scenes being too loud/bombastic when a softer more ambient soundtrack would have been better.
With all that said I WOULD advocate for the director to be financed and to continue developing and the film was not a complete waste. It does sit well with SYFY type of films and as stated my expectations may have been too high has it was a awesome trailer.
The creature looked awful and probably the most fake I have seen besides most the creatures on SYFY. They show too many close up, medium and long shots of real bad fish model which clearly looks fake. I appreciate, what looked to be, practical effects over CGI but in this case it didn't help the film. Some of the better scenes with the fish is when it is submerged in the water or a shadow in the water. Its huge eyes look fake as and should have been darker to hide that fake-ness.
The story is unremarkable and the characters, as written, are awful. I feel the actors did their job and no criticisms there - though none shine through. The director, I feel is sloppy as there is no build up for tension in his scenes, he rushes moments that should have levity (most death scenes besides the first girls) and the cinematography is amateurish. The director should have been in control of these aspects. The aspects of having friends making decisions about who to use as fish bait is as stupid as it sounds and comes across like voting for Big Brother. The teen love triangle and angst did leave some room for the actors to emote but again the director I feel didn't push or get the best out of them. The editing and the music was god awful and ruined some aspects of the suspense in scenes being too loud/bombastic when a softer more ambient soundtrack would have been better.
With all that said I WOULD advocate for the director to be financed and to continue developing and the film was not a complete waste. It does sit well with SYFY type of films and as stated my expectations may have been too high has it was a awesome trailer.
The Reef
(2010)
Better than Open Water....
1 January 2011
Has similar premise as Open Water but is done a lot better. The characters are a lot better (no endless bickering for 3/4 of the movie) and the shark is both a real threat and clearly seen throughout the movie. This was the movie i was hoping Open Water would be.
The film is not fast paced or action orientated with all the attacks being quick but impactful. We have a lot of pov shots at water level and a views of under the water to slowly build the tension. I found this more than effective.
The direction is tight and the acting is decent. The shark itself seems to be real footage of a great white mixed in with the actors and it works really well. In fact i would say this is one if not the only shark film that does this seamlessly.
Without a doubt The Reef is one of the best shark films ever and i highly recommend it to anyone that loves animal attacks films or sharks. SYFY should take note on how to do a animal attack film right by watching this film.
The film is not fast paced or action orientated with all the attacks being quick but impactful. We have a lot of pov shots at water level and a views of under the water to slowly build the tension. I found this more than effective.
The direction is tight and the acting is decent. The shark itself seems to be real footage of a great white mixed in with the actors and it works really well. In fact i would say this is one if not the only shark film that does this seamlessly.
Without a doubt The Reef is one of the best shark films ever and i highly recommend it to anyone that loves animal attacks films or sharks. SYFY should take note on how to do a animal attack film right by watching this film.
The Boogens
(1981)
Surprising decent atmosphere, characters and story !
6 March 2010
Being in Australia The Boogens was not really a movie that i had seen or heard of before researching horror films from the 80's. For Americans i think this was a TV movie that impacted most kids that saw it at the time and hence leaves fonds memories of being scared.
I knew what i was getting into when i went into this - a very early 80's film with dud monster effects. What i was surprised at was for a slow burning movie i actually became quite immersed. First of there was a layer of suspense that was quite well executed and the characters themselves seemed very 'normal' compared to the models that litter our movies these days. The story, though basic, was creepy and i have to say i fell in love with Tiger the dog who really does in many ways steal the the entire movie away from the cast.
The only real kick to the teeth here is what others have commented in relation to the monsters themselves. With a lot of POV shots, tentacles and a water scene that was quite well shot the monster for the large part is not shown on screen and for good reason. I know this was a low budget TV production but movies such as The Deadly Spawn, which was incredibly low budget, did a much better job with there creatures. As another poster commented the creature looks like a hybrid of a sea turtle and octopus and strangely has the most cute fake dow like eyes hahaha. Simple fact is it looks like a rubber toy and when shown on screen it doesn't really do anything but sit there.
As most would know if you make a monster movie and have a huge set up with it and it looks fake it can ruin the whole experience of what came before it and The Boogens nearly does this.
I appreciate the budget restraints and for the most past the director did an excellent job of working around it but this will be only a one time watch for me and soon to be long forgotten
I knew what i was getting into when i went into this - a very early 80's film with dud monster effects. What i was surprised at was for a slow burning movie i actually became quite immersed. First of there was a layer of suspense that was quite well executed and the characters themselves seemed very 'normal' compared to the models that litter our movies these days. The story, though basic, was creepy and i have to say i fell in love with Tiger the dog who really does in many ways steal the the entire movie away from the cast.
The only real kick to the teeth here is what others have commented in relation to the monsters themselves. With a lot of POV shots, tentacles and a water scene that was quite well shot the monster for the large part is not shown on screen and for good reason. I know this was a low budget TV production but movies such as The Deadly Spawn, which was incredibly low budget, did a much better job with there creatures. As another poster commented the creature looks like a hybrid of a sea turtle and octopus and strangely has the most cute fake dow like eyes hahaha. Simple fact is it looks like a rubber toy and when shown on screen it doesn't really do anything but sit there.
As most would know if you make a monster movie and have a huge set up with it and it looks fake it can ruin the whole experience of what came before it and The Boogens nearly does this.
I appreciate the budget restraints and for the most past the director did an excellent job of working around it but this will be only a one time watch for me and soon to be long forgotten
Tony
(I) (2009)
Too Short but fantastic !
2 March 2010
This film literally just drops you into Tony's life and then drops you right back out again. The fact that i was so desperate for more is a good sign that what I did see was great. And the ending itself was quite well done with a great piece of music that, with what had come before, had deeper meaning for me - in other words it made my skin crawl. Which again, is a good thing !
I am assessing by its very simple decor, locations and shots that this was quite low budget which is a credit to the film-makers, actors and script writers. The story is completely focused on the life of a man named Tony. One could describe him as a loner, depressed, socially awkward and well...passive. As we get to see Tony though we come to the conclusion that he is more than f#@ked up and has crossed the 'weird psychopath' line well and truly.
I mean the guy has a Paul Young cassette for Christ sake!!!
The movie hinges on tony, a mild, meek guy, actually being a serial killer that like some real life serial killers (Nielsen, Dahmer) seems to crave company and not to be socially rejected. There is clear connection to the mentioned real life killers in Tony as he attends gay bars and only seems to kill men. Though Tony has a life and identity of his own and for the brief time I did get to follow him i was into it.
Those seeking blood, guts, gore, action, jump scares forget it. Tony is a character study which lingers artistically and builds a layer of dread throughout instead of shoving everything in a sleek, fast edited production.
I am assessing by its very simple decor, locations and shots that this was quite low budget which is a credit to the film-makers, actors and script writers. The story is completely focused on the life of a man named Tony. One could describe him as a loner, depressed, socially awkward and well...passive. As we get to see Tony though we come to the conclusion that he is more than f#@ked up and has crossed the 'weird psychopath' line well and truly.
I mean the guy has a Paul Young cassette for Christ sake!!!
The movie hinges on tony, a mild, meek guy, actually being a serial killer that like some real life serial killers (Nielsen, Dahmer) seems to crave company and not to be socially rejected. There is clear connection to the mentioned real life killers in Tony as he attends gay bars and only seems to kill men. Though Tony has a life and identity of his own and for the brief time I did get to follow him i was into it.
Those seeking blood, guts, gore, action, jump scares forget it. Tony is a character study which lingers artistically and builds a layer of dread throughout instead of shoving everything in a sleek, fast edited production.
Grotesque
(2009)
Gore at expense of everything else. !
8 September 2009
Just watched and only because it is banned and therefore had to seek it out and say a big ' f#@k ' u to any board who try to stop me from watching a film unless of course it involves snuff, real animal killings or kids. Anyways, the film was quite well shot and the acting for what it was - was good. All and all the production values are great. I wouldn't say gore wise this over-tops anything else that is out there especially from Japan (thinks Ichi the killer) but it is as full on as it can go.
what turned me of was that the movie is very mean spirited and has no other feature than to show the torture and brutality inflicted on our two victims. The story is very basic even for a slasher with very minimal exposition. Two people are kidnapped and tortured in full on ways - that's it I didn't learn anything here nor did i come away entertained so one has to ask why was it made - who was the director thinking this would please audience wise. The film is at the very edge as far as a film can show and if that is the sole purpose then congrats to the film makers but this isn't my type of film and i doubt it would be a repeated view for many sane people out there. This is a one time watch if that and only if you are curious about it.
With no real contexts, all you are left with is graphic torture after another and if that is all that entertains you when you watch a film..well....i am frankly a bit scared of you. I don't mind the occasional torture scene liking films such as Hostel, Texas Chainsaw, Inside, High Tension, Martyrs, Frontiers and the Saw franchise but for all there faults they all give you some story, breathing room between the torture scenes, production, some meaning and actually entertain. If being locked in the same room for and hour and 15 minutes while you watch the most extreme close ups of sadistic torture without anything else to it thrills you then maybe this movie is for you.
I am trying to stress i am not opposed to gore, i am personally just opposed to gore alone with no other meaning besides thrilling those sickos that like this stuff and revolting everyone else - simply to revolt. That's not film-making to me.
For me, there is no redeeming factors to this movie besides some production value and the debate it will create around censorship and going to far in film. Regardless of the film just being mean spirit, the film is actually just a bad film. If your curious due to it being a banned film in 2009 (i can't believe a film is banned in this day and age) or just like a bit of gore than seek it out and have a look but i don't think this is a film that many will sincerely enjoy and watch again. The only merit here may be to other film makers regarding the production value and Japanese horror theater but to the casual viewer there is nothing here for you - but it doesn't mean you shouldn't be able to watch it.
what turned me of was that the movie is very mean spirited and has no other feature than to show the torture and brutality inflicted on our two victims. The story is very basic even for a slasher with very minimal exposition. Two people are kidnapped and tortured in full on ways - that's it I didn't learn anything here nor did i come away entertained so one has to ask why was it made - who was the director thinking this would please audience wise. The film is at the very edge as far as a film can show and if that is the sole purpose then congrats to the film makers but this isn't my type of film and i doubt it would be a repeated view for many sane people out there. This is a one time watch if that and only if you are curious about it.
With no real contexts, all you are left with is graphic torture after another and if that is all that entertains you when you watch a film..well....i am frankly a bit scared of you. I don't mind the occasional torture scene liking films such as Hostel, Texas Chainsaw, Inside, High Tension, Martyrs, Frontiers and the Saw franchise but for all there faults they all give you some story, breathing room between the torture scenes, production, some meaning and actually entertain. If being locked in the same room for and hour and 15 minutes while you watch the most extreme close ups of sadistic torture without anything else to it thrills you then maybe this movie is for you.
I am trying to stress i am not opposed to gore, i am personally just opposed to gore alone with no other meaning besides thrilling those sickos that like this stuff and revolting everyone else - simply to revolt. That's not film-making to me.
For me, there is no redeeming factors to this movie besides some production value and the debate it will create around censorship and going to far in film. Regardless of the film just being mean spirit, the film is actually just a bad film. If your curious due to it being a banned film in 2009 (i can't believe a film is banned in this day and age) or just like a bit of gore than seek it out and have a look but i don't think this is a film that many will sincerely enjoy and watch again. The only merit here may be to other film makers regarding the production value and Japanese horror theater but to the casual viewer there is nothing here for you - but it doesn't mean you shouldn't be able to watch it.
Pulse 3
(2008)
Really Bad !
9 January 2009
OK to put this in reference i am one of those minorities that actually liked the first Pulse. Further, low and behold i actually didn't mind the squeal and though for a direct DVD it was pretty good. The blue screens never bothered me with the film as i tend to view it as the defining look for the second one and clear indication that the ghosts via electronics have taken over the world. For me it just worked and had a OK storyline. Not saying it is a masterpiece but i enjoyed it.
Pulse 3 had the same look as the second and i could have lived with that but man does the story suck. The fact i as a previous Pulse fan hates it tells you something. The story is boring, bad acting, hopeless story that is both predictable and just plain stupid and the film just isn't any fun to watch. There are plot lines that defy any logic and mixed with bad acting it is a chore to watch.
Avoid at all costs. It really does suck and i say that as a guy that liked the first two.
Pulse 3 had the same look as the second and i could have lived with that but man does the story suck. The fact i as a previous Pulse fan hates it tells you something. The story is boring, bad acting, hopeless story that is both predictable and just plain stupid and the film just isn't any fun to watch. There are plot lines that defy any logic and mixed with bad acting it is a chore to watch.
Avoid at all costs. It really does suck and i say that as a guy that liked the first two.
Worth the price of admission..
4 January 2009
I am really glad that i read all the negative reviews before i saw this film as it completely lowered my expectations and i was left with actually thinking this movie was alright. I haven't seen the original and am not likely too but to be honest so i can only go with what i felt here and now with this film. And...i enjoyed it. To be honest i was expecting some dumb downed movie with grand special effects, things blowing up and a very diluted message ala Independence Day. But dare i say it i thought the message in the film was a lot deeper and the effects though great took more of a backseat. The acting and maturity to the screenplay were present and i feel this is a film that won't attract the 'gun-ho' crowd who like their action thick and fast and hence the poorer box office numbers. When a film like Twilight (which i also though was better than i thought) ranks in the dough it is clear the theatrical market is based on a teenage audience and quite frankly i can't see that crowd digging this.
Keane Reeves was tolerable, Jennifer Connelly quite good, John Cleese, though brief, good and Kathy Bates as always was excellent. I agree with most that the kid was mis cast and really even when he was hit with his own morality didn't really present as a likable character and i feel that was due to a mis casting on the behalf of the makers of the film. I think we are meant to follow his way of thinking but them come to the revelation and moment where we are touched between the relationship between him and his step-mother but this never quite worked.
As mentioned though, i found the overall message to be a a lot deeper than expected and i think it fits with the current world climate on us as a species and the planet. I know the first was more around our violence and possible nuclear devastation but the 'green' theme suited today's time better.
The movie is not outstanding nor a masterpiece and maybe the original is, as stated haven't seen it. But i was entertained and thought there was some depth to the whole thing that goes beyond the norm for these types of movies. I almost would call this the 'thinking man's Independence Day'.
Definitely above average if only just.
Keane Reeves was tolerable, Jennifer Connelly quite good, John Cleese, though brief, good and Kathy Bates as always was excellent. I agree with most that the kid was mis cast and really even when he was hit with his own morality didn't really present as a likable character and i feel that was due to a mis casting on the behalf of the makers of the film. I think we are meant to follow his way of thinking but them come to the revelation and moment where we are touched between the relationship between him and his step-mother but this never quite worked.
As mentioned though, i found the overall message to be a a lot deeper than expected and i think it fits with the current world climate on us as a species and the planet. I know the first was more around our violence and possible nuclear devastation but the 'green' theme suited today's time better.
The movie is not outstanding nor a masterpiece and maybe the original is, as stated haven't seen it. But i was entertained and thought there was some depth to the whole thing that goes beyond the norm for these types of movies. I almost would call this the 'thinking man's Independence Day'.
Definitely above average if only just.
Quantum of Solace
(2008)
No 00 in this Bond !!!
19 November 2008
After Casino Royale i think most expectations were high for QOS and mine were no exception. After a more comic book style of Bond with Die Another Day i felt the producers brought Bond back to life in Casino and created one of the most highly regarded and memorable Bond movies in the entire series. With some trepidation i read some reviews before i saw QOS and prepared myself for the worst. This was never going to be as good as Casino but even going in with my eyes wide open i did not expect the mess that was QOS. Without a doubt i agree with any reviewer that has made comment on the direction. Plain and simply...it sucked. To a great degree even the worst Bond films have a Bond stamp on it including majestic locations, rich scenery, dry wit, extended action sequences and direction that is tight but leaves at least one lasting imprint. This film had none of these elements and all due to the direction. sure we had lots of locations but none had any elements of awe besides a few shots here and there of the Mediterranean coastline. Most shots were dull and lifeless. There was no outstanding dialogue leading to no suspense or tension. All action sequence were poorly directed and missed the entire key to Bonds success. Epic action sequences that for the most part don't use tricks of the camera or CGI. All the action scenes ARE poorly edited and as others have commented just to damn reliant on quick cuts to build a frantic pace. I have seen all Bourne films which many compare to the style of action in this film and can say that they are directed way better than this film. I would gladly have put up with a Bourne style movie but this was even worse. simple put the director killed the action sequences in a Bond film by giving no epic stunts and actually SHOWING the scene. He is far to reliant on ultra quick edits that confuse and remove any awe from the scene. The same is with the pace of scenes and story as well. We have what i think is a great story but it is ruined by the poorly directed scenes and moves along too fast to build any tension or mystery. My main criticism of the film and sheer disappointment came soley from the direction. I could nit pick and say the opening sequence was the worst bond opening ever but at the end of the day i can get over all that if the film had been directed well.
What i did like about the film and gave it 5 stars for is that it is still a Bond film. The story was a great continuation of the story arc left from Casino. Daniel Craig is in my books is by far one of the best as Bond. The on-going story arc of Bond, Mathis and the CIA Agent from Casino had a nice emotional reasonace for me in the film. And something opposing common opinion, i thought the villain was decent.
I believe this film would have been greater if not for the direction. What we have left here is a poor Bond film when we were all expecting after Casino a great one. Regardless of the fact it is Bond i feel that at best this a average movie that without its pulling power of title and actors would be quickly forgotten.
Casino was great, QOS was average to mediocre. My suggestion for the third is simply....never , never and i mean NEVER hire this director again.
What i did like about the film and gave it 5 stars for is that it is still a Bond film. The story was a great continuation of the story arc left from Casino. Daniel Craig is in my books is by far one of the best as Bond. The on-going story arc of Bond, Mathis and the CIA Agent from Casino had a nice emotional reasonace for me in the film. And something opposing common opinion, i thought the villain was decent.
I believe this film would have been greater if not for the direction. What we have left here is a poor Bond film when we were all expecting after Casino a great one. Regardless of the fact it is Bond i feel that at best this a average movie that without its pulling power of title and actors would be quickly forgotten.
Casino was great, QOS was average to mediocre. My suggestion for the third is simply....never , never and i mean NEVER hire this director again.
Ghost Rider
(2007)
Really Enjoyed !!!!!
15 October 2008
I haven't read that many reviews on this film and only happen to pick it up because it was going really cheap. I am really disappointed it has taken me this long to find this film as i really enjoyed it and would have paid full price to this on the big screen.
I am sure there will be lots of negative reviews for the film and I can't be bothered to read through all of them. At the end of the day what i ask myself when going into a comic book movie is - Was i entertained ?. Ghost Rider had some great visuals, a solid story and great acting (loved Cage's maniacal transformation into the Ghost Rider). I will go on record and say i enjoyed this better than Spiderman but then i am more a horror freak than an action one so i liked the more dark side of the film than the light and poppy friendly Spiderman.
I don't mind Nic Cage and can basically watch him in anything though i have friends that hate him and thus hate the film so i guess it is all personal preference. everyone keeps raging on him cause they don't like the guy or the films he does. I am not saying that The Wicker Man is a freakin classic but once again i could handle it because i like watching Cage. I would never say the guy is a bad actor though as he has proved over and over that he has a certain screen presence and has had some great roles. I mean Pacino and De Niro considered greats have been in some crap films. doesn't mean that they are bad actors all of sudden.
I don't know .....sounds like i got a hard on for Nic.....but i really did enjoy the film and his performance !!!! :P
I am sure there will be lots of negative reviews for the film and I can't be bothered to read through all of them. At the end of the day what i ask myself when going into a comic book movie is - Was i entertained ?. Ghost Rider had some great visuals, a solid story and great acting (loved Cage's maniacal transformation into the Ghost Rider). I will go on record and say i enjoyed this better than Spiderman but then i am more a horror freak than an action one so i liked the more dark side of the film than the light and poppy friendly Spiderman.
I don't mind Nic Cage and can basically watch him in anything though i have friends that hate him and thus hate the film so i guess it is all personal preference. everyone keeps raging on him cause they don't like the guy or the films he does. I am not saying that The Wicker Man is a freakin classic but once again i could handle it because i like watching Cage. I would never say the guy is a bad actor though as he has proved over and over that he has a certain screen presence and has had some great roles. I mean Pacino and De Niro considered greats have been in some crap films. doesn't mean that they are bad actors all of sudden.
I don't know .....sounds like i got a hard on for Nic.....but i really did enjoy the film and his performance !!!! :P
Hellraiser: Inferno
(2000 Video)
Great film !!!!
8 May 2008
It Jacobs Ladder cross Hellraiser and guess what ???? It actually works ! As commented, it is really different from the previous 4 and so much the better for it. This is far more psychological and serious with a real menace to it as opposed to flat out shock and cheesy horror that sorta ran through the last 2 movies (3,4).
I really didn't like this film when it first came out cause for me Hellraiser was all about Pinhead and here he takes a backseat but like a fine wine it has fermented and as i have got older the movie has developed more depth as i view the movie for what it is - a really good morality horror movie.
The best Hellraiser after 1 and 2.
I really didn't like this film when it first came out cause for me Hellraiser was all about Pinhead and here he takes a backseat but like a fine wine it has fermented and as i have got older the movie has developed more depth as i view the movie for what it is - a really good morality horror movie.
The best Hellraiser after 1 and 2.
Jumper
(2008)
I wanted to jump out of this film !
16 February 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Prob the first film i have seen in a cinema where about half way through i wanted to leave. Just a very empty film with a really unlikeable lead. I can see clearly that the director was pushing the whole hedonistic type character but this was just a plain old mistake on his part and i'm surprised the studio let him go through with it. I had no sympathy for the lead and thus no connection or feeling to the outcomes.This guy was a complete yuppie, egocentric arsehole irrelevant that of that fact he had powers or not and i found myself rooting for Jackson's character to nail his arse. He completely screws over everyone he come in contact with including another jumper that had a real moral motive to do what he did.The film would have been a lot better if we had had Jamie Bell's character more at the fore front and i was far more interested in his story and motives.
To add insult, actions scenes, dialogue and overall production was trite. There was nothing amazing or special and personally i found the direction of the film to be dull. No build up, no connection, just a shallow film that doesn't even entertain on any level besides the concept of 'jumpers' but even then they screw this up by adding more and more to the concept to a point it becomes stupid. Yeah we jump, oh we leave a trail when we jump too, oh and then we can jump through another jumper trails and just to be more awesome we can jump objects and building - eck ! This would fine if there was a more natural flow and reason to it but here it simply seems to be added to explain and assist the next plot set up or a way to escape. It's not that other films don't do this but here the direction is too obvious and it seems hammered.
To end this rant on any positives, i will say the production seems high and it was great to see so many location set-ups. i, unlike some, like Jacksons presence in the film and still think the guy can play an ultimate badarse. At an hour and a half the film didn't drag and some of the action sequences, though badly directed, added some excitement to the proceedings.
Good concept - bad film and horrid lead !
To add insult, actions scenes, dialogue and overall production was trite. There was nothing amazing or special and personally i found the direction of the film to be dull. No build up, no connection, just a shallow film that doesn't even entertain on any level besides the concept of 'jumpers' but even then they screw this up by adding more and more to the concept to a point it becomes stupid. Yeah we jump, oh we leave a trail when we jump too, oh and then we can jump through another jumper trails and just to be more awesome we can jump objects and building - eck ! This would fine if there was a more natural flow and reason to it but here it simply seems to be added to explain and assist the next plot set up or a way to escape. It's not that other films don't do this but here the direction is too obvious and it seems hammered.
To end this rant on any positives, i will say the production seems high and it was great to see so many location set-ups. i, unlike some, like Jacksons presence in the film and still think the guy can play an ultimate badarse. At an hour and a half the film didn't drag and some of the action sequences, though badly directed, added some excitement to the proceedings.
Good concept - bad film and horrid lead !
Tell Your Friends