Change Your Image
tarll
Reviews
BloodRayne (2005)
so bad it's almost good
Just watched this and am writing while it's fresh in my mind. I have to say this a terrible movie. The dialogue is forced & clichéd, the special effects are poor or worse. The gore can't even be called gross because it's to unreal (Perhaps someone should have told the director that human bodies carry a limited amount of blood). The talents of Kingsly, Madson & Zane were completely wasted. Perhaps the only redeeming feature is that the script, for all it's flaws, was fairly coherent until the end (still don't understand the ending). And yet, for all that, I did enjoy this movie. Perhaps it falls under the so bad it's good category.
Tarzan Goes to India (1962)
A real tarzan
Jock Mahoney's first outing as Burroughs' Tarzan makes for a nice, enjoyable movie. Though like many sixties adventures it is aimed at a younger crowd, accounting for a rather irritating kid sidekick, it is much truer in tone to Burroughs' work than most of what preceded it. Mahoney is a good Tarzan, portraying him as intelligent and articulate as the written version, although a bit to mellow. This is not the savage Tarzan of the books. The Indian scenery is wonderful, the story, while fairly simple, is well done, and most of the acting is good for it's genre and time. The elephant roundup is spectacular. All in all, one of the better Tarzan movies of those i've seen so far.
The Dark (2005)
good example of best type of horror
Just finished watching the dark and felt had to comment on it. This is the type of horror I like. Too many horrors these days aren't about horror, but about how many gallons of blood and dismembered bodies they can show. This was about suspense, and the violence and horror in it much more suggested than shown, making it that much more effective. It is not a perfect movie, but it has it's fair share of scares, and interesting premise, based on Welsh mythology, and good performances all around. The only reason I didn't rate it higher was too many of the scares followed overused horror movie conventions, and the ending, which I won't descibe to avoid giving spoilers, gets a little bit to convoluted for it's own good. I saw it on DVD and it had a alternate ending as well. The alternated was a little bit clearer, I found it more enjoyable, but in retrospect the one they used was probably more effective. If you like thoughtful horror or are a Sean Bean fan, you'll probably mostly enjoy this one.
After the Sunset (2004)
enjoyable but disappointing
I found this a disappointing movie, especially as it would seem to play to Pierce Brosanan's strengths. Without revealing story elements, my problem with this movie is that it seems almost lazy. It feels as if the producers simply said to themselves Pierce Brosnan as a thief, automatic hit. It wasn't. This felt like a the TV movies he was doing fifteen years ago rather than a major theatrical release. I can't fault any of the actors, they all did the best with what they had. I can't even say it wasn't enjoyable, but it certainly wasn't what it could be. Mayeb making it either less of a comedy or more of one would have helped. Maybe less time on Brosnan's apparent reluctance to reenter his criminal life and more on the heist itself. If it had all moved with the precision of the open sequence, I'd have been much happier.
Constantine (2005)
better than expected
I finally saw Constantine and have to say it was much better than I expected. Keanu reeves actually did a decent job of the role, not great, but decent. The mood of the comics was well preserved. It would have been better set in England with and English actor (Paul Bettany for instance), but for an americanized version it was good. I disagree with a lot of the comments I have read. The plot was well thought out, based on some of the comic stories, and the characters (except Chas) were well done. For the complainers, Constantine is supposed to be an jerk. If anything he was much mellower in the movie. I hope it does well. Even with it's flaws it's more intelligent than many horror or action movies produced today.
The Avengers (1998)
no so bad
I have endless bad reviews of this movie and I just don't get it. It isn't the best movie ever made, and certainly could have been better, but it deserves better than the trashing it got. If anyone had bothered to watch any of the television series they would have seen that it was frequently over the top and silly. The Avengers was always meant to be a spoof on the James Bond image, and in that this movie succeeds. The straight delivery of the ridiculous material is the point of the Avengers. It this I feel Fiennes and Connery did a wonderful job. Fiennes was perfectly unflappable all the way through, keeping a straight face at all the silliness, and Connery was delightfully over the top as deWinter. Thurman, unfortunately, was nothing but eye candy, not up to her usual standards and certainly not matching Diana Rigg. Yes, the teddy bears were silly, but, then, they were supposed to be. I bought this movie when it came out on video and will doubtless enjoy it many times 7/10
GoldenEye (1995)
best villain
This is probably my favorite of Brosnan's Bond work, and one of the best of the series. While it still follows the formula it is faster paced than most of the Moore films and returns Bond to a harder edge while maintaining the humor. What really makes this film, however, is the presence of Judi Dench as M, giving a whole dynamic to Bond's relationship to his superiors, and of Sean Bean, easily one of the best Bond villains. I read once that a hero is defined by the quality of his opponent, and Bean was one of the best in the series, behind only Blofeld and Goldfinger. If I have one complaint of this, or any of Brosnan's work, it's that his bond tends to be in Rambo mode a bit to often. Bond, to me, works with a pistol and his brains, not with an endless supply of machine guns.