lukaszsw Reviews

Fallout (2024– )

Its good but has some shortcomings

[8/10 · 16 April 2024]

Overall the show looks good and sounds good. The tone is perfect with all characters being ridiculous. I grew up with FO1 and FO2 and the show is more in line with later games but it's fine

It's starts to fast introducing everyone in 1st episode and then continues with weird cuts to different characters.

The characters and not particularly likable with except for Walton Goggins, he is great. Lucy is like a mormon that never seen and outside world - the problem is that it is rarely funny. Maximus on the other hand is not relatable, why does he do what he do - what people hurt him and what revenge he wants to tak. Perhaps it is a set up for later reveal but right now he is somehow bland - is he good, bad, opportunistic. He seems exactly like Star Wars black trooper who was there but is not remembered because he wasn't well written character or really relevant to the story.

Some people complained that many game locations are absent or destroyed. I guess they are right, there is a missed opportunity for many references.

Same with the Brotherhood / Enclave. Looks a bit like like both factions were merged into one, but perhaps, again, it is a set up for later seasons.

One glaring aspect of the show is ultra violence. Its a trend lately (The Boys, Gen V, Invincible and probably more). The game was never so bloody (although there were occasional decapitations). It doesn't really add to the show that much.

Fallout is a really well made adaptation, it capture many aspects of the game. Its just overall the show doesn't make you care about its characters. Character motivations are unconvincing. The Last of US show managed it better. But still I hope next Fallout season will be better.

Dune (2021)

Beautiful but pretty flat

[7/10 · 26 February 2024]

It looks great, it sounds great. The actors do a good job. I really like Oscar Isaac, Momoa was alright and Brolin is always great on screen. Bardem was instantly recognizable but didn't have a chance to shine (and why there is a Spaniard, shouldn't they have similar accents?).

But I feel that action and CGI took precedence over acting.

The plot followed the book pretty well but I have the same problem with as with the book, as with the 1984 movie (I didn't see the HBO miniseries) - it doesn't really explain much. The Bene Gesserit are explained well. But otherwise - why there is so little technology (and so much at the same time)? Who are the navigators? (oh wait, those are somehow missing from 2023 version) Who are mentats and similarly why are they there?

I see a top review asking about using scrolls in the far future. I agree. I've only accidentally read somewhere about a War after which most tech was banned. Like mentats replacing computers. Shouldn't it be explained a bit in such a long movie.

I have to mention here that perhaps the political intrigues where good in the book but it was created in now ancient times when little technology was available. Because of that I don't it will ever have a good film adaptation. It will be either boring political thriller or some flat action sci-fi. This one is the latter and for that I think it doesn't have that much appeal.

I don't really like Denis Villeneuve for what he has done for Blade Runner (though I should like him for Sicario) but the movie is quite competently made and a pleasure to watch.

Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny (2023)

This is actually one of the few GOOD continuation of the 80-90s classics

[9/10 · 28 November 2023]

I was a bit worried about mediocre reviews but the first 20 minutes were 1:1 copies of old Indiana Jones movies - Nazis, artifacts, train chase. Well, Harrison Ford Deepfake was bad but otherwise it was entertaining. There were some silly throwbacks to classic lines. The heroine was fine. The adventures took us from New York to car chase in Tangier to an underwater shipwreck to finally a proper Tomb and even a plane fight. Bad guys hilariously kick heroes asses but then they somehow escape. Indiana complains about snakes, sort of. In the end bad guys fall to their deaths as it often was 30 years ago.

I have little to complain. It was long but fine. It didn't feel forced as Crystal Skull. The CGI was weak and some internal logic was lacking (but who needs logic in Indiana Jones). Seriously there were so many bad movies that this Indiana Jones is a gem. I'd say it does capture my childhood pretty well.

Spectral (2016)

Dumb fun but has some good moments

[8/10 · 7 February 2022]

Pretty straightforward movie - basically ghost start killing off soldiers in some remote eastern Europe setting. A genius technician comes in saves the day.

And when I say genius - Tony Stark build arc reactor in a cave, with a box of scrap! This guy is way ahead. With a box of scrap he is able to outfit like 40 people with weapons against those ghost enemies. The weapons comes with a set of futuristic armor (no idea why, ghost kill them the same) complete with fitting masks and helmets. All of those gear look like they took years of development, Modern Warfare stuff. Nope, he did it overnight.

The military sequences are well made and shot. I hear it was made for 3d and I believe ghosts jumping and exploding would look great in 3d.

All in all it is a decent popcorn flick. Don't expect much logic and you won't be disappointed.

Ad Astra (2019)

Not that great, not really about space travel

[7/10 · 14 December 2019]

I've sat down not knowing anything about this movie. So apparently Brad Pitt character is sent to contact his father who went missing near pluto. A mix of Event Horizon, Sunshine and Space Oddysey (sort of). First thing that struck me was ridiculous settings - like moon having city sized bases made of concrete even though it still takes real life giant rockets two transport a couple of man. Moon also apparently have pirates because even though resources are scarce it makes sense to use the last drop of fuel attacking other lunar expeditions. Then we have many unnecessary bits, like answering sos call and ship captain being eaten by monkeys. A part that could be cut from the movie as well. Pitt flying through rings of Pluto (or was it Saturn), behind a piece of metal that miraculously shields him from rock debris is ridiculous. And in the end we learn that the main character found his way of life and space was just a theme for his loneliness. I've expected more. I've heard it is better than Interstellar but there space was more than just a metaphor. I could settle it was better than Gravity but that's not saying much.

Identity (2003)

If nothing is what it seems why care?

[5/10 · 6 May 2011]

I understand why many people like this movie but I couldn't stand it! The Story is 10 strangers are stranded in a motel during a heavy rainstorm and they are killed why by one. The other scene is in the court house with judge, prosecutors, defense an a psychiatrist wait for a convict to arrive because there is some new evidence in his case and his presence is needed. Later, and this isn't really a spoiler, people get killed but who is the killer? Who will manage to survive? The problem is that this movie behaves a little like the "Lost" series, each new revelation seems disjointed from the rest and not making sense. It is so in your face, like the movie is saying "ha ha, I've got you".

So after a while I completely lost interest after a fifth plot twist. See, I don't really consider it enjoyable when I am told that I will be fooled and than anticipating it. Sixth Sense was great because most people didn't see it coming, in "Identity" you are tossed a bone and expected to find it but it is not a fair struggle with movie toying with you.

Having that said acting is superb, John Cusack and Ray Liotta are great.

Robert Ebert wrote that the movie is a rarity not having a formulatic third act. Today (when I finally got to see it) I'd say the movie is formulatic in the exact sense that it doesn't want to be and ends up being it. "A follower in reverse" (-Bjarke Ingels)

Labor Pains (2009)

Labour Fails suits this title better

[1/10 · 31 July 2009]

To be honest I really had more fun watching these "Based on the true story" titles my mother is keen on watching. This title is full of clichés, the plot is incomprehensible and the acting is mediocre at best.

Thea Clayhill (Lindsay Lohan) is assistant to an editor and her job is very lousy (to say the least). She is very hardworking and she has to support her little sister Emma (Bridgit Mendler). She dates a local sandwich guy. When she steps on her bosses foot once too much he fires her but retracts his decision when she says she is pregnant (she isn't really). She steals a fake belly off the manikin in the store, comes to work and everybody buys it immediately.

The worst thing about this movie is that everything feels unbelievable and underdeveloped. Are there really such publishing offices where every single male i sexist to the female secretary? How can a place like that still make an income when the main editor is caring about his dog 100 times more than about the books? They also say that the office is quite successful. The biggest question is why would anybody pretend to be pregnant to save the worst job in the world? Especially that it is established that Thea is hardworking.

There suppose to be some discovery from the main character about the hardship of being pregnant but it all boils down to a single-sentence statements about the whole thing. To think that a pillow can pass as a pregnant belly for months is simply atrocious.

We are suppose to believe that Thea has to put up with the job because she has a sister to support but their struggle seems nonexistent. Neither of the sister is bothered by their parents death (mabe it happened years ago), which itself is mentioned so briefly that suggest that even the director didn't think of it much. Even though this suppose to be the force behind Lindsay holding to the job.

The cast makes the most of what the script is but because of their honest approach (as if this was a regular blockbuster) it seems even less entertaining. There is absolutely no chemistry between the male lead and Lindsay. As if every discriminated woman would fall for the first guy that shows them affection. The first relationship that she is in is even more bizarre - her boyfriend is a sandwich stand guy with two or three lines in the movie: one about the sandwiches and one to

get her humiliated so the character can be discarded.

I have to say I smiled a couple of times during the movie because of oddly inserted jokes like the breading lessons instructor "borrowing" a husband of one of the women in the class. But thats merely enough to push the movie to mediocre territory and certainly to little to wash the bad aftertaste of all of the other jokes.

From the cast my favorite is the cocky little sister Emma. Bridgit Mendler seem right at home and act almost effortlessly. That is in contrast of Lindsay Lohan who, I have to say, seems inappropriate for the transition to mature roles (or maybe to very lousy ones) I'm giving it 3/10 for some rare mediocre jokes and Bridgit Mendler but the lasting impression is that I watched Straight-to-garbage production.

Dead Snow (2009)

How can a movie be excellent and disappointing at the same time?

[7/10 · 24 July 2009]

I will start with why it is excellent: The movie open with a group of hikers going on Easter vacation. Their destination is a small cabin so far from any civilization that there is no reception there. Every character is a stereotype: a blond bimbo, a nerd, a shy reasonable guy, a caring girlfriend and others. They all speak Norwegian (or is it Swedish?) and are not at all known actors (at least not in Hollywood). However they give a great performance that on top of great cinematography and costume design. You would never had guess that this is a small low-budget production, it is simply beautiful how the director managed to pull this off.

Now the promise is that during WW2 some Nazis were stationed here and murdered locals for their gold. Now the civilians gathered up and chased the soldiers to the mountains were they seemingly froze to death. Of course they didn't and they are back to make a pretty nice threat. For the first hour this is great.

Now why the movie is disappointing: After the first hour the director run out of ideas. You see pulled intestines three (!) times. There is a battle between the Nazis and the survivors armed with tools from the shed. Its great but it only lasts for 3 or 4 minutes and they only use a chainsaw and a hammer. What is with the other tools? Especially that we were show to a pitchfork and also we can imagine using a monkey wrench or a vise or many other things. Having the chainsaw in the next 5 gags feels repetitive.

Also there is a problem of making a movie entirely out of clichés is problematic. They are only right when the event still happens in many films. If it was a cliché 20 years ago it is not so recognized anymore. Some are perfect like having zombies and a stranger appear from nowhere seemingly sneaking up on the character. This is exploited to the limit in Dead Snow and it is funny. But what would be a cliché ending - does everybody die or are there some survivors? there is no answer because there is as many examples for one as the other - now, director has to choose one and he can't be right, why should you watch it then?

Its hard not to compare to Shaun of the Dead, which had a richer satire and more interesting characters (I know, I know, thats not the point of Dead Snow). Even though Dead Snow comes first when you count make-up and cinematography. Yet, like many reviewers stated, it is a movie to have playing in the background of a drunk party. While some scenes are brilliant the movie as whole doesn't have enough jokes or/and clichés to fill 85 minutes. Watching the 10 minute clip of a mentioned "battle" is well enough for most movie goers, I assure you.

Event Horizon (1997)

It has something for everybody but nothing that would make it a great movie

[7/10 · 23 July 2009]

I enjoyed Event Horizon the first time I watched it. Now after some years I went back to it and it still holds although it aged badly. That doesn't make it a bad movie, in my opinion the age made it unintentionally funny and that what kept me watching.

The story follows pretty much the same story as the movie "Ghostship" (which is even more unintentionally silly) - there is a ship wreck in space, a team is sent to search & rescue and they all get slaughter. Much alike "Ghostship" there is a plot twist which is unexpected and makes no sense but sure is great to watch.

But what makes this movie bearable is pure comedy on screen. We start with Sam Neil as Dr Weir (thats a villain name alright) in a bathroom on a rescue ship. He has a large mirror and a bathtub (his room sure is spacious for a starship. Of course there is normal gravitation all around. You wouldn't guess how astronauts in 2047 shave - with a RAZOR. His attention is drawn by a dripping tap, the tap itself has no levers so I guess Neil thought to himself "I should have went for a premium space-tub". Also all this space plumbers must be lazy not to fix the tap before a mission. We then visit the bridge where everybody have roller chairs (what if the gravity generator malfunctioned?) and spit stupid one-liners like "its all blinking on my screen". The captain is Morpheus (played by Morpheus=) and he makes little more sense unless you count an odd leather jacket - is it the part of official uniform? The crew goes into some deep sleep chambers (like in alien but with water) and Doctor Weir wakes up first, everybody is sleeping and computer is silent. Don't you know that this is a nightmare already? This ends with a comedic "AAAAAaaaaAAA" by Sam Neil, wasn't he embarrassed by doing a scene like that? After they wake up they found out that they are near Neptun and complain (didn't they know where the ship was headed?). Also its up to Weir to explain to the crew how the government made a ship faster than light. Impossibly the crew is smart enough to tell this is impossible. This scene is priceless because again it hard not to pity Sam Neil to explain the unexplainable. He starts with saying how they managed to fold "space time", is it similar to time on Earth? Than 5 minutes before they reach the wreck Dr Weir(d) plays them the one transmission that they've got from it - the recording consist of loud screams and a mad voice saying "save me" in Latin. NOW, thats a good hint 5 MINUTES before boarding the vessel! wow =) The team goes to the ships, find it awfully quiet and than find stupid excuses to to wander off and get slaughtered. The big (no) secret is that the ship basically been to HELL and back. That very original. Whats unoriginal is why the ship finds some sneaky way to kill the characters instead of turning the life support off. The design of the capable-of-speed-of-light spaceship is questionable to say the lest. To get to engineering part you have to go trough a section that looks like a meat grinder and the engine itself looks like torture chamber fantasy. Seriously why a a engine would even need so many spikes? and sharp parts. I think the engine is powered on dangerous environment alone. The core is a liquid stable substance and the character exhibits whats seems to be a "matrix syndrome" to put the whole hand into unknown substance. What kind of engineer does that? I like the set-up but the rest of the film that follow is sub-par: we see a lot of gore (people with gouged eyes, parts of people falling from the ceiling, people crushed) and all the characters do nothing but invent stupid ways to get out of the ship. The plot twist is indeed unexpected (although not shocking) but at the same time gives no hints as why it happened.

Its a funny little flick that is more disgusting than scary but I don't think there is an abundance of this kind of horrors. Its recommendable but don't expect anything remotely serious and coherent. With a good spirit you can have a great time with it.