Reviews

16 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
The Mission (1986)
6/10
Interesting but not Spectacular
4 May 2005
The Mission is a film that boasts, above all else, breathtaking scenery of the South American continent, including the massive Iguazu waterfalls of Argentina (near its border with Paraguay). Underneath this eye candy, however, is an unevenly directed, and straightforward, though occasionally intriguing, story, topped by somewhat tepid performances from the cast.

Based loosely off of true events, The Mission is set in the 1750s in the regions of Argentina, Brazil, and Paraguay, when Spanish and Portuguese colonial forces were continuously seeking to expand their territories and constantly fighting one another. Wrapped up in these colonial skirmishes are the indigenous people of the region, namely the Guarani Indians. Jeremy Irons plays the Jesuit priest and missionary Father Gabriel, who with his comrades seeks to peacefully convert the natives to Christianity and teach them the finer aspects of Western Civilization. Compromising these efforts, however, are Spanish soldiers, particularly the mercenary Rodrigo Mendoza, played by Robert De Niro, who see the natives as savages and no better than animals, useful only as slaves for the Europeans and as occasional hunting targets.

Through a tragic sequence of events, however, Mendoza is convicted of murder, and in his grief attempts to seek repentance. Father Gabriel decides to take Mendoza under the wing of his Order, and the group heads back from the Spanish settlement to the missions of the Guarani. Mendoza lives among the peaceful natives and is born anew as a Jesuit priest.

The Guarani's and Jesuit's troubles are not over, however. The Portuguese are encroaching on the Guarani missions, seeking to enslave them and create profit for their overseas colonies. The Spanish and the Papacy's emissaries are unsympathetic to the Jesuits' concerns for the Guarani; the official Church, in fact, still does not really recognize the Guarani as human beings. This leaves Father Mendoza, Father Gabriel, their Jesuit compatriots, and the Guarani on their own, and a conflict arises between the Jesuits' views of nonviolence and the increasing necessity of preparing to do battle with the Portuguese, who will certainly destroy them if they do not resist.

As stated earlier, the film has a fairly straightforward story. This of course would not be a negative if the story instead chose to focus on character development, but it only provides surface level insight into the main characters played by De Niro and Irons. The Guarani have no prominent role in the film; they are entirely props, background fodder to the white leading stars. In this sense The Mission takes the same path many films about the civil rights movement do: making white characters the main protagonists and leaving the black characters as supporting voices at best, often in order to appeal to a presumably majority white audience. We learn very little about the Guarani themselves beyond the fact that they have spears and seem to readily give up their own beliefs and traditions for Christianity. What are their thoughts and feelings concerning the warring Europeans? Do they truly believe what the Jesuits are telling them, or do they sometimes have doubts? The conflicts between the Papal authorities in South America and the Jesuits are handled well. Historically the Jesuits have been the "thorn in the paw" of the Catholic Church despite their nominal allegiance to the Pope, and this is quite evident in the film. The missions are designed in a style similar to the French radicalism of the period (the film is set decades prior to the French Revolution of 1789), where the Guarani share everything in common. This socialistic style is reminiscent of the Marxist liberation theology many priests chose to take in the 20th century, including the American Daniel Berrigan, who in fact has a minor role in this film.

The film is beautifully shot and features lush cinematography; however, the battle choreography of the film's climax is somewhat ragged and unrealistic; the relative lack of character development adds to the "ho hum" feeling one gets while watching the Portuguese and the Guarani-Jesuit team fight it out on land and in kayaks.

The performances are decent though not spectacular. Robert De Niro seems occasionally uncomfortable in his role as Mendoza. Jeremy Irons does a good job as Father Gabriel and the other actors perform adequately. The dialogue, however, is such that none of the performances, except perhaps for Mr. Irons, are very memorable.

Apparently The Mission also seeks to give the audience a moral lesson about modern day transgressions against the Guarani and other indigenous people in the Americas, but this is not particularly effective and comes across as cloying and, frankly, patronizing towards the natives, who, as stated earlier, are simply props in this story.

Those with an interest in colonial South American history will find this film watchable, as will anyone who enjoys gorgeous scenery. But aside from a few memorable moments, The Mission doesn't stand out as truly brilliant cinema.
18 out of 36 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Ned Kelly (2003)
6/10
Forgettable
26 March 2004
I was able to see this film while visiting Australia, and after seeing the Melbourne prison that houses Kelly's famous "tin-man" armor suit. Ned Kelly was a fascinating persona, and I can easily see why he's a national legend in his home country. Unfortunately, this film interpretation of his rise and fall (I haven't seen the Mick Jagger version) is decidedly average at best. Acting from Ledger, Bloom, Watts and the always grand Geoffrey Rush is excellent, and the film is beautifully shot (I mean it's Australia, how couldn't it be?), but the script is lacking in substance and maddeningly revisionist in many aspects. There are some clever scenes sprinkled here and there, which break up the monotony somewhat, but not enough for me to recommend this film without reservation, even to hardcore Kelly enthusiasts. At the most, I'd say give it a try... but don't expect anything award-worthy.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Incoherent sequel to Craven's classic
30 November 2003
Probably the strangest thing about this very bizarre second entry in the Nightmare series is its liberal exposure of a certain body part...not really my cup of tea. To add insult to injury, Freddy's Revenge makes little to no sense. Any connections to the original are slight at best, and the whole concept of Freddy's "essence" making Jesse kill falls apart towards the middle of the film, especially during a pretty pointless (but very imaginative) SFX sequence. The movie plods along with very little actual gore until the infamous pool party scene, but even that seems held back and lazily directed (plus you'll probably still be wondering just what the hell is going on when you're watching...more than the other sequels, Nightmare 2 completely tramples on the rules Craven set down in the original).

All in all, you won't miss much if you watch Nightmare 1 and take a big leap over this mess to Dream Warriors, Dream Child and New Nightmare (Dream Master and Freddy's Dead are watchable but inferior overall).
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Gotta defend the man...Conan
22 November 2003
You know, Co-NAN. See, it rhymes...aw, forget it. Honestly, any one who doesn't find this to be one of the most gleefully hilarious shows on television needs to check and see where their sense of humor committed suicide. Now 10 years running, everything about this show seems divinely inspired by the mythical deities of comedy...and heck, if it's not, Conan can just do one of his jigs or facial expressions and it's funny again. That's the key to this show's success, really, his free-for-all, self-deprecating, refreshingly geekish lack of self-constraint. And then there's Max Weinburg, the perfect straight man...in fact he seems to have almost no personality, which is why he's so great (oh yeah, and his band is superb...best band on late night). And Joel is always Joel, God bless him and his Asian boy toy. And TRIUMPH! Need I say more?

Since moving to a central standard time zone, Conan's on at 11:35, so I actually get to watch on a consistent basis now, which is great (and yeah, I know he's on Comedy Central in the evenings, but's the experience just isn't the same). Here's hoping this show lasts another 10 years!
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Halloween (1978)
9/10
Stunning
20 November 2003
Halloween has inspired so many clones, rip-offs, and inferior sequels (i.e. Resurrection...the horror, oh the horror) that there is absolutely no denying its impact, not just on the slasher genre but on horror films in general. It's incredibly atmospheric, always keeps up an ominous tension throughout, and the characters are realistically portrayed (well, Sam Loomis is sort of larger-than-life and endowed with a theatrical grace, but in a good way, thank you Donald). Although slasher flicks now are obsessed with body counts and gore (doesn't really bother me, but hey!) Halloween is probably the only slasher that both fans and non-fans of the genre can enjoy. This is a superb movie, period. The way Michael Myers moves, tilts his head after every kill as if studying his victim's death twitches with some sort of morbid fascination...it's chilling. The music is ambient and simplistic, underscoring the non-convoluted and straightforward, malevolent way Myers goes about ending the lives of everyone close to Laurie Strode (beautiful acting by Jamie Lee Curtis). And the ending is nightmarish and jarring, leaving the viewer's mouth gaping wide open with shock, but only if it hasn't already been spoiled before you see it!

Director John Carpenter was at his prime in the late 70s and early 80s. His work today pales in comparison to his brilliant early films, which is probably why a Halloween remake is (apparently) in the works. But really, I can't see how the original Halloween could possibly be improved upon.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
*cough*
19 November 2003
For all the millions of fans waiting in breathless anticipation for the next installment in the timeless Home Alone franchise...here you go. Um. Kevin is back. Marv is French Stewart, you know, from that show about the aliens (Daniel Stern apparently is working on Bushwacked 2 or the Dilbert movie or something). Joe Pesci is a successful actor, so he decided to stay out for this one. Catherine O'Hara is an intelligent person, so she is also noticeably absent as well. And Macaulay Culkin is either in prison or planning a second guest appearance on Will and Grace (or a Sonic Youth video). There's a stupid female robber instead of a short one with a gold tooth. And the old man from the original took a raincheck too. Pigeon Lady is still in New York, probably dead. Okay, I'm done.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Not so good
19 November 2003
Wow, this may go down in history as the most unsatisfying final act in movie history. The Matrix Revolutions is hopelessly convoluted, weirdly uninteresting, Completely humorless, and entrenched in the excessive CGI-laced hokum of a thousand other nauseatingly stupid action movies. But at least many of those are self-aware in that they're bad, and thus know when to have fun. Revolutions seems to be under the impression it's elevated above those in some capacity. The fact is, if this movie wasn't riding on the coattails of its predecessors, it wouldn't even be a blip on the blockbuster radar.

And it shouldn't have been this lame. The original film was stylish, inventive, and threw in some intriguing philosophy to boot. It wasn't a masterpiece, but it definitely set a new standard for all action movies that followed it. Its sequel, The Matrix Reloaded, was more of the same, just more grandiose and even more confusing for those who had trouble understanding the first film's mechanics. It was also pretentious in some ways and in desperate need of editing. But it was still GOOD, it still worked when all was said and done, if for no other reason than that the action sequences were spectacular (although the Neo human-to-CGI transformations were jarring and painfully obvious).

Revolutions, on the other hand, is a mess. With the exception of Morpheus and Agent Smith (and, however brief his scenes, the Merovingian), none of the series' characters were very interesting. Here, they're flat-out unlikable because not only are they boring, they're weirdly stupid and spout incredibly cliched lines. Those who played the video game Enter the Matrix might see something worthwhile in Ghost and Niobe and "the Kid" is from a sequence in the Animatrix, but who cares? Unlike Star Wars, where the minor characters usually looked cool or had funny voices, the "Expanded Universe" cast here are all useless talking heads, amalgams of soldiers from countless WWII shoot-em-ups or human Jar Jar wannabes (at least Jar Jar was cute for small children. The Kid is apparently some sort of obnoxious replacement for Mouse from the original). The dialogue is simply god-awful throughout the entire film. Any scene that starts out interesting always ends up flat. Characters come and go without a trace, many of whom who were from Reloaded and who fans assumed would be a large part of this entry. Not so, instead they're wasted, being only involved in scenes that are pretty much time-fillers: the "Rescue Neo" sequence serves almost no point and does nothing to advance the plot, instead it's a vehicle for a dull shoot-out and token cameos from the Merovingian and Persephone (and what was the point of the Trainman?!)

The movie goes downhill (moreso) from there. Lots of goofy-looking Mechs ripped off from Aliens shoot a lot of squiddies. Characters die, the audience blinks in indifference; after all, there's no development of their personalities, so why care what happens to them? I ended up rooting for the machines because 1: they look cool and 2: if they did succeed in destroying Zion, no one would have to suffer through another "rave scene" ever again. Neo discovers his destiny a la Luke Skywalker or Aragorn after more needless scenes (they truly serve no purpose, I'm not kidding), but the setup to this is not adequately explained so many will be scratching their heads. The problem is that even if you do care enough to understand fully the events leading up to this movie's huge letdown of a finale, you'll still likely not give a hoot because the story's major players are lifeless; even Morpheus is now Chewbacca in this one (which I guess makes Niobe a very hot Han Solo, also Jada Pinkett Smith is the only actor on the human side who shows some resistance to monotony, as her lines are delivered with genuine passion). Hugo Weaving and his identical buddies gnash their teeth a lot. Mary Alice as the Oracle sounds like Barbara Walters, and her proselytizing has become tiresome.

Ultimately, Revolutions is proof that The Matrix franchise had nowhere to go after Reloaded. The entire series is like a particularly unusual three-course meal: first a tender filet mignon, followed by an after-dinner salad, but ending with a partially melted Junior Size Three Musketeers bar. That's the Matrix Revolutions in a nutshell.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Jason X (2001)
6/10
Uber-Jason Smash!
19 November 2003
The Friday the 13th series goes the way of Critters 4 and Leprechaun in Space, but this is much more fun than those two (or maybe it's just because I'm a Jason fan). There are some pretty creative kills in this one, but a lot of strangely uninspired ones too. With the obvious exception of Robert "Fred Krueger" Englund, Kane Hodder is the king of all slasher actors (actually he's the only man to portray the silent stalker for more than one sequel, and he's still damn good). The film was shot in Canada, so David Cronenberg drops in for a cameo. There's a funny scene at the end...I won't spoil it, although someone else probably already has on this site. The new Jason is pretty cool, but we don't need a Jason X2 (and not just because it sounds like a Mega Man game). If New Line feels inspired to eke out another Friday after Freddy vs. Jason, then it'd be best if they return the series to its roots. Still, Jason X is a pretty good time-waster for fans of this eternal franchise.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Silver Bullet (1985)
The Cycle of the Werewolf comes to the screen
19 November 2003
Stephen King wrote the original novella The Cycle of the Werewolf and adapted it to film with a title that better fits the story. When all's said and done, Silver Bullet generally holds your interest. The mystery of the werewolf's identity is not too readily obvious (unless you've read the book) and there's sufficient suspense and gore. Good acting all around, especially "the man" Gary Busey. Not the best of the genre, but most definitely not the worst.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Good fun
8 November 2003
If you go into a movie called Freddy vs. Jason and expect soul-searching dialogue, powerful statements about the nature of man and timely and relevant social messages...

I can't think of a way to finish this thought, because I can only ask why you bothered to enter the theater in the first place!

The teens in this movie are fodder, the adults are ignorant, and most importantly, the blood flows freely. Freddy vs. Jason does everything a good slasher should, and then some. For many fans, this is the ultimate match-up. The catchphrase-spouting, dream-invading 3rd degree burn-laced child murderer Freddy Krueger, matched up against the plodding, mentally challenged wrecking ball with an unusually proficient skill at handling sharp things that is Jason Voorhees. The filmmakers did a terrific job here, incorporating mythology from both series effectively and devising lots of ingenious ways for Fred and Jace to go at it, either with the inferior mortals or head to head (the latter of which, of course, is the coup-de-grace of this film). The dialogue is indeed corny, but also often funny in that enjoyable "why-am-I-laughing" way...actually it's a step up from most of the other films in either series. And yes there are plot holes, but if you're looking for those you're once again missing the point. This is about Robert Englund, who gives the performance of a lifetime with all of his scowling glee intact. Fans howled about Kane Hodder not being cast as Jason this go-around, but his replacement does a fine job as the silent goalie anyway.

The unedited gore is also a godsend, as slasher films have been sanitized to the point of made-for-TV fare for over a decade now. F vs. J's final battle is mind-blowing for series fans waiting patiently for years for this project to materialize. Non-fans won't understand the crisscrossing symbolism that intertwines the two franchises, but the screenwriters definitely deserve kudos for treating the script with a care similar to Freddy's "New Nightmare" and Jason's "F-13 Part 6". Also deserving praise is director Ronny Yu, who seems to revel in resurrecting long-dead horror series (i.e. Bride of Chucky). He brings a definite energy to this film that a lesser helmer would fail to contribute.

So which icon wins? You have to see the movie...or, if you're like one of the gentlepeople I mentioned above, you'll probably want to back away slowly, scratch your head in confusion, then turn and run far, far away. Because you certainly won't "get" why people enjoy Freddy vs. Jason.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
X2 (2003)
8/10
Suprising
8 November 2003
The first film was so dreary and contrived that I was expecting not too much from X2. Thankfully, this sequel is leagues beyond the 2000 original in every way: story, pacing, action scenes, and character development are all brought up a notch, and the result is an entertaining ride from start to finish. Nightcrawler in particular is a showstopper, and Halle Berry has finally figured out the angle of her Storm character, and used it to her advantage. Of course Cyclops is as boring as ever; actually, the filmmakers must have realized this because he has almost no role in the movie! Wolverine is still a fan favorite, and he finally gets to show off his violent temper here in more ways than one. The acting is solid all around, but Kiwi Anna Paquin needs to decide if Rogue has a Southern accent or not. Ian McKellen is fantastic as Magneto, and Patrick Stewart is still the perfect Professor X, even if his role is somewhat diminished this time around. There's also a surprise ending that will please X-fans (the allusions to a particular era in X-history are obvious).

The only thing that really bothered me about X2 is Kelly Hu's Yuriko; I won't spoil anything, but it's a minor plot hole that bugged me (or maybe there's something I missed). Still, recent titles like X2 are proving that superhero movies don't have to suck if they're done keeping both the average filmgoer and the insatiable uberfan in mind.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
A melange of genres that doesn't always mix well
8 November 2003
"American Werewolf" is a great concept: two unequivocally 80s American college kids trekking through the bowels of England's moors stumble upon a cursed lycanthrope who turns both their lives upside down. It has a sizable spattering of dark humor, sex, outstanding transformation scenes courtesy of Rick Baker, creative death chases (watch out London commuters!) and a terrific soundtrack, especially CCR's Bad Moon Rising. There are also some weird extraneous elements that are completely unexpected (including a very memorable dream sequence); all of this helps "AWIL" stand out well above most other werewolf epics. Unfortunately, towards the climax it's a little hard to figure out what John Landis was really going for, because the movie ends perfunctorily and leaves the viewer unsatisfied overall; there are too many loose ends that aren't closed, and the jarring transitions between humor and gore don't always work so well. Still, it's a worthy venture in this subgenre, easily better than passable fare like Silver Bullet but still lacking when compared to The Howling. Avoid the sequel, any magic the original possessed is absent there and the CGI lycans are pretty weak (as most horror fans would agree!)
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Isn't this the ultimate definition of 'cult film'?
20 October 2003
I'll make this short since no one wants to read another acting/cinematography/tone/story/direction recap...Kill Bill is so fantastically vibrant and different from most (all) American action movies today that it's no wonder so many people (arthouse snobs *cough*) DESPISE it. I mean, being neutral to it is fine, disliking it, sure, but to hate it on the level some people do...well, I question their priorities, it is just a movie, after all.

The film is one big homage, like it or not. It's all style, cold stares, quirky humor, dizzying fight scenes. A wee bit of editing might have helped a tad I guess, but this is Tarantino, for god's sake...yes, naysayers have established time and again that he's often self-indulgent, but who cares? He's good at what he does. And to endlessly compare him to Kubrick (demigod to many film buffs) or any other director is pointless.

Quentin wanted to make a film that was a sort of lovechild of all his fond memories of watching old-school martial arts and samurai epics...that means minimalist dialogue (and any dialogue has to have some sense of self-aware homage), buckets of spraying blood, and fighting, lots of fighting. If QT had put his usual prophet chic into Kill Bill, it wouldn't have worked...like he said in several interviews, KB takes place in a twisted universe different from our own, even different from the 'magical realism' of Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction (by the way, Jackie Brown is not his best work, as so many non-fans love to espouse for some reason. It was a misfire, a well-intentioned one though).

To be fair, I think the fact the movie was 'split in two' does lessen the overall story somewhat...it had to be done, I know, but hopefully once Vol. 2 comes out, there will be a splicing together of the two films similar to the Godfather Epic for the DVD.

So people (esp. Tarantino fans!) should stop comparing this to his other work, because he wasn't trying to 'top' his previous films, he wanted to do something different, and the result is a movie that I think is the epitome of 'cult-appeal'- you like it or you loathe it. I loved it: it's not trying to whittle us down with unbearably asinine philosophy like Matrix Reloaded, because that's, quite simply, not what Kill Bill is...believe it or not, every movie doesn't have to have an omniscient morality permeating through it, if they all did when would we ever just enjoy ourselves at the theater? Aren't movies, first and foremost, an escape? And although I guess I'll be labeled an idiot by the snobs, I honestly don't care. Let them wallow in the self-congratulatory crap they usually do, often just so they can affirm themselves as smarter than everyone else, I mean that is human nature, after all. I personally like movies of all kinds...and if every movie tried to be American Beauty, I think this would be a pretty bleak and downcast world, wouldn't you?

Equally horrendous are those people who call themselves 'true' grindhouse fans and then bash QT's film as 'lacking': the fight scenes are crap, Uma can't handle a katana (this smacks of subtle racism against non-Asian female action stars, methinks), there's too much blood...even if those claims were true (they're not), why nitpick? Anyone who really is a fan of these genres should be thanking Tarantino, not spitting in his face. Or maybe you want your hobby to stay buried under the mainstream public's radar, because otherwise you won't be so unique? In that case, shame on you.

Kill Bill IS cult, just like Master of Death and Street Fighter (Sonny Chiba's, not Capcom's) are cult, just like The Evil Dead and Pink Flamingo and The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert are cult. And it's damn good cult, too.

Eh, that wasn't so short, oh well. Go support this movie if you like the genre is the summation. Because if you don't, QT will fade away and lesser filmmakers will take his place, crapping out cookie-cutter remakes of the A-Team and Rollerball and God knows what else. And then we really are in trouble.

Bring on Vol. 2.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Warhol-haters, take heed
6 February 2003
Although this film is overlong and often dull, it's still an intriguing look into a feminist gone way over the edge, who directs her wrath upon one of the most polarized artists of the century (you either love Warhol or you despise him, it seems). Anyone who truly detested Warhol may enjoy just seeing him get shot... I mean, if you're sadistic. People who are neutral towards his "greatness" (like me) or unfamiliar with his work may lose interest in this film; only Lili Taylor's hard-edged performance keeps the somewhat muddled story above water. And since I've never met anyone who worships the ground Warhol walked on, I can't say as to what those people might think of this film...in its favor, the script is objective towards both Valerie Solanas and Andy. At any rate, "I Shot Andy Warhol" is worth checking out if you stumble upon it on IFC one night.
5 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Bad Taste (1987)
8/10
Maniacal early work from the infamously creative Jackson
6 February 2003
Anyone who complains about the "excessive" violence in this movie is missing the point. Peter Jackson is perhaps the most gifted fantasy-horror director around, and his goal in making films is a testament to indie filmmakers and anyone who enjoys innovative works: ignore the critics and do what you want to do, not what some highbrow thinks. In the case of Bad Taste, Jackson got his buddies together and made a little over-the-top (in a good way) film that is one of the most successful low-budget pictures ever made. Is it his best work? No...Heavenly Creatures and the soon-to-be-completed LOTR trilogy would beg to differ there. But what it does show is the early processes of a young determined Kiwi who is today one of the most ingenious and brilliant filmmakers in the industry.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Rollerball (2002)
2/10
Whoa
10 February 2002
I still can't figure out why there would be a remake to an obscure movie no that no one really paid attention to when it came out. Oh, wait, yes I can. Money. Hollywood's system of rehashing every book, movie and TV show they can think of continues with Rollerball, a remake of the 1975 James Caan film. Of course, what the fairly good original had in a well-scripted plot and interesting allegory to corporate power and American bloodlust, the remake tries to make up for in bombastic music, lots o' blood, and MTV-style editing. My biggest gripe with this film, though, is the way they diced up the scenes of the Rollerball tracks to the point where you can't tell what the hell is going on; the original, at least, made the game and its rules clear. I wasn't expecting much when I went to see this mess, so I was shocked when it went below my expectations. I didn't even feel any testosterone-fueled adrenaline at the finale.

Okay, I'm spending way too much time on this review. Just do yourself a favor and rent the original. Or do anything else, for that matter.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed