gaiderdraco Reviews

Smokin' Aces 2: Assassins' Ball (2010 Video)

Oh boy...

[1/10 · 16 January 2010]

I don't want to be rude by actually providing this film with a rating and seeing that I haven't a choice I give it no more than a 1.

Smokin' Aces was in interesting film. It has a good premise that, even though it isn't remarkable or original made sense for the universe that contained it. A mob snitch is going under witness protection and a large group of assassins are hired to exterminate him. He name is Buddy "Aces" Israel, hence the title "Smokin' Aces".

This film on the other hand ignores the fact that the first film even exists at all and therefore, immediately the title "Smokin' Aces 2" doesn't make sense. That's the first reason behind this film's epic failure. The next step in failing is that this was produced as a telefilm and was shot entirely with a digital camera. Not a very good either because with a digital format and not a enough lighting the final product is out of focus most of the time that the camera actually moves. That's just a technical aspect and during the last half an hour of the film it was out of focus during many parts and seemed to be shot with 30 frames per second (fps); the proper way to shoot any movie that contains an actual budget is with 24fps.

The story here is that an FBI veteran is under witness protection for reasons made unclear until the end of the film and seeing that the first film contained a plot twist that was kind of predictable, this film had to have one, also. The teleplay's awful so I predicted the ending's twist within the first 10 minutes. Once again, a group of assassins must kill a man and this time he's locked tightly underground and is very secured.

The first film provided audiences with a barrage of strange but intriguing characters for its assassins, but every one of them had a specific reason for wanting to collect the reward money. This film does not go that far. It's just assassins vs. the FBI and it's mostly boring.

The action is violent and hectic, when there is any and while the special effects are decent (lots of a bullet hits and blood packs) the CGI is atrociously awful. All explosions are transparent and physics doesn't exist in this film in any way, shape, or form.

To sum it up, even for a made for TV movie this movie sucks. It's pacing is, probably deliberately slow and its assassins are pathetic caricatures. The twist at the end can be seen a mile away and makes little to no sense and the performances are pretty bad. Again, even for a telefilm.

Skip this movie if you liked the first one and even if you didn't, or hadn't seen it skip it anyway. It's not even worth a free rental at your local Blockbuster Video.

D.

Superman/Doomsday (2007 Video)

Superman. No one can do him justice anymore

[2/10 · 13 September 2007]

"Superman Doomsday" is based on the most famous Superman comic to date, the one based on Superman's "death". That's the only thing this movie does right: it knows what it's "supposed to be about".

The voice actors are terrible, or just not appropriate for the characters they are given. The animation and art are terrible, also. Just like the animated series from the 90's, except that series was good in every other respect. Doomsday, in this film, has been bio-engineered and, for some reason, has long white hair. I could have sworn that he was just another alien who managed to outlast Superman and leave the plant.

Aside for the obvious changes, this movie is boring. It contains violence not suitable for most kids and acts of violence concocted by Superman, to further the story along. Lex Luthor is an idiot (and even bigger idiot than the Kevin Spacey version) and is a murderer.

This production was weak from the first ten minutes until the end and I hope that this production company hires better artists, appropriate voice actors, actual screenwriters, and some imagination.

D.

Lucky Number Slevin (2006)

No spoilers needed, this is the most predictable movie in recent years

[1/10 · 7 January 2007]

First off, let me announce that even fans of this film agree that it contains the worst interior decoration/wallpaper in the history of the cinema.

Now, after the first 15 minutes of the film (entirely pointless because Bruce Willis tells a man a story for 15 minutes and then kills him (WTF?!!!)), it becomes evident as to the tone and direction of the film. But after half of it goes by it becomes morbid and overly violent; a polar of it's first half. That's a no-no.

The acting makes this to be a kitschy dark comedy but it eventually transpires into a bloody mess that was evident from the start (literally, I knew where it was going to end 20 minutes into it). No sympathy for any of the characters is acquired because they do not ask for any. Also, the lack of a linear storytelling style destroys all hope of a "proper" catharsis. Or even a remotely satisfying ending.

I hated almost every minute of this film and if you want to see a "real" revenge film watch South Korea's "Oldboy" or even QT's "Kill Bill Vol. 2".

D.

The Prestige (2006)

The Prestige doesn't work due to acute predictability

[3/10 · 28 October 2006]

Christopher Nolan's "The Prestige" is a very good looking movie and is very well acted. That having been said Chris Nolan plants so many winks toward the audience and little hints everywhere so that the "not so average" movie goer could see where it is leading one hour into the film. I did and so I am greatly disappointed.

If "The Prestige" carries such an elaborate plot, with many twists and turns and a touch of sci-fi to it (no spoiler warning needed, it is mentioned in the commercial) then why make it simple for audiences to follow it? Movies like this carry great weight with terrific work and craftsmanship but for the second hour I sat in the theater knowing the end.

This is not really a review, seeing that I don't need to review this film after hundreds have already done, but it is simply that if you follow the film properly (by listening to what the characters say without taking everything literally and by seeing everything that you are indeed seeing) its payoff will be quite sub-par.

I compare this to "The Illusionist" because both films attempt to pull off a con on the audience. "The Illusionist" carries more grace, in its almost 1920's film-making style, and the plot is harder to figure out but overall it carries realism, which "The Prestige" does not (by a long shot).

5/10 due to a terribly predictable story that is purposely woven in that fashion by Chris Nolan. If you want to see film that is airtight and what ill awe you, watch his film "Following".

D.

Running Scared (2006)

Just when you thought there was only one Tony Scott...

[1/10 · 3 March 2006]

First of, when viewing the movie to the end one will note that due to a certain "twist" near the end of the story, the movie becomes pointless from the beginning to where it got to.

The gun is not actually important. So who could possibly not notice such a blooper while writing the script of filming the movie?

Secondly, the direction is not as poor as Tony Scott's but poorer, because it rips him off entirely. Just when you thought that Tony Scott's fast-paced, chopped-to-pieces edited, words repeated, overlapping images, and green tinted movies were completely pointless in those regards here comes Wayne Kramer.

He directed "The Cooler", which starred the great Alec Baldwin and William H. Macy and it was a terrific film simply for its audacious idea of the man who rings you bad luck. It was directed well and had terrific dialog. Now he destroys his previous image by not letting you see much in the film (due to the "shaky-camera syndrome" and the Tony Scott school of 'lack of' editing) and the story was pointless. The characters were ridiculously caricatured and every other word was foul. The graphic violence was pointless because the technique of realism was not used in the film; nor was it over the top.

The situations were all ridiculous and preposterous and this movie had, literally everything. Also, EVERYBODY dies in it. That was not a spoiler. You will notice that within the first ten minutes of the film.

This is one of the dumbest, most pathetic excuses for a movie that I had ever seen and I can only sum up with: at least it wasn't as back as "Man On Fire" and "Domino".

D.

Oldboy (2003)

Oldboy is a contemporary masterpiece

[10/10 · 20 August 2005]

Similar to the ideal behind "Kill Bill: Vol. 2", "Oldboy" is not your typical revenge drama. As a matter of fact, until one views the film in its entirety one will not know of the fact that the revenge does not belong to the protagonist but rather to the antagonist.

A statement mentioned in the review before mine claims that "Oldboy" does not have a 'meaning', that its ending is not satisfactory (when comparing to "Seven", "Memento", and "The Sixth Sense"). Those two films are not "revenge flicks", they are trend setters that work entirely on atmosphere and that their endings do not necessarily need to be important.

"Memento"'s ending is flawed because you don't know whether Lenny is a faker, himself, or not and whether what Joe Pantoliano says is true. "Seven" had a message brought forth by a lunatic monster and after his surrender, the ending was not 'important', but rather a balancing act between insanity and brilliance. "The Sixth Sense"'s ending hits you like a punch and cheats the audience because who Bruce Willis' character REALLY is is inconsequential to the story of the boy who speaks to ghosts.

Also aforementioned is a quote by Morgan Freeman; but to honest, 'The world is a beautiful place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part.' is a quote from Ernest Hemmingway.

Oldboy is visceral and brutal but is also bold and insightful as to the fact that although you have had harm done unto you do not try and seek revenge by murder or vigilance. Try your best to understand WHY the terrible occurrence had happened to you and what you can NOW do to fix it.

That is the ideal, the 'point' of "Oldboy" and it has been exercised wonderfully.

It is one of 2005's best films (in North America), although it is copyright 2004.

D.

Dogville (2003)

One of the worst films of all time, or just of 2003? (SPOILERS)

[1/10 · 6 March 2005]

Lars Von Trier is "known" to be an anti-American. I am not judging the film by the personal likes and dislikes of the director but simply by what I saw, interpreted, and thought of, after seeing the film.

Dogville is filmed with, what appears to be, a MiniDV camcorder (the worst in the market) and instantly flashes the idea that Lars Von Trier did not want to take the film seriously; professionally.

Dogville stars Nicole Kidman, in a rather gutsy performance, and places her as a woman named Grace who is chased by gangsters into a small mining village. The village is called Dogville; no doubt named by a Native American. Dogville is quiet and contains average and everyday people who own separate businesses and have never in their lives seen action before. They all eventually decide to take Grace under their warm wing and to get her to become one of them, so that they could like her and want her to stay (indefinitely) beyond her 2-week probation period. Things eventually turn sour, due to a few male residents of Dogville and Grace is accused of everything: beating children (that asked and blackmailed her into beating them), and having infidelities with some of the husbands in Dogville. The village-folk fasten a chain around Grace's neck, rape her every day, break the porcelain figurines she worked months to be able to afford and purchase, and contemplate even worse prospects for her.

I will leave the last half hour (of the three hour "saga") to your imaginations and curiosities.

How can such lovely and quiet people actually think of such things? And if Grace is a gangster's woman/daughter, why does she not (simply) open her mouth and let everybody know of the truth?

Human emotions are, apparently, present in this monstrosity of a film and not a single "actual" human thought is being presented.

This movie is a mockery of film-making and an insult to others who attempt to reach originality, and to portray the truth behind human nature.

D.