Reviews

So the budget is big. Some expensive actors. Lots of expensive special effects. Either lots of location filming or very good simulation, you can usually tell when they're not really there...

Pit they didn't reserve some of the budget for the writing team. Plots that make no sense, even on casual examination, and mediocre dialog.

Often doing things in an un-necessarily complex way in order to facilitate the FX shot, but not even trying to come up with a plausible explanation WHY they didn't just do it the easy way. Bad guy escaped? Well you didn't tie him up whilst he was unconscious ,for why?

We enjoyed this, and I'm sure in native language it was excellent, but, for non Finnish speakers, we have the version dubbed into english, and it's bizarre - I'm sure they're really proud of how they fitted words to the actors' mouth movements, but, the words they used to fit, make a nonsense of the plot and most of the acting. What seems to be a pause to emphasise a point, for example, is just a pause waiting for the actor's mouth to move again. Would've been so much better if they gave lip sync up as a lost cause and just gave us a realistic translation of the actual dialog. This is a failing not unique to this production but somehow worse than other recent productions.

A derivative plot basis for a poor script with mediocre dialog... cliche chase sequences, entirely predictable "surprise" moments... LN should quit whilst he's ahead.

And... it turns out you need SO much more than bankable stars.

Pity, the premise is good - the cast excellent, if only the script could keep up... looks like someone read a few chapters about character development, pacing, presumably they watched Hustle or The Sting but didn't understand why those work so well...

Don't think of this as a Bruce Willis film. This is very much a b-rate film with a weak script full of plot holes and cardboard acting, Willis's involvement is primarily being the big name on the poster. If you want a good BW film, go watch Last Boyscout or Fifth Element or even Die Hard again. No doubt he can do it - but he ain't doing it here.

There was a "hollywood star" of a previous generation famous for having films he put lots of effort into, and films where he would "say the lines, kiss the girl, take the cheque to the bank". Looks like BW has bought into his philosophy.

45 years ago I read the book the first time. For 45 years I've been sure it would one day be possible for a film to do it justice. Trouble is it's a long and complicated book, and you can't easily go slicing chunks out of it and keep the sense. Which is what David Lynch found when they hacked his budget. On top of that SFX was clearly going to be an issue.

Even understanding the need to wait, the waiting clearly pushes up expectations. 45 years of waiting sets the bar really high.

And I'm pleased as punch to say that Villeneuve has bided his time and kept his powder dry and he too has waited until it became possible to do it right, and then pounced. (Would it be carrying the metaphor too far to say he waited until he saw the blue of their eyes?)

Fans of the book - fear not, it's here in all its glory. OK - to ensure the ubergeeks have something to moan about there are a few lines missing here and the odd scene there but every key element is present, unmolested. This is for you in spades.

Those who have not read the book... if you like your SF hard, not just any old random gobbldygook rammed together with some fancy fx slapped on top, this is for you too.

Now, where am I going to sit and wait for Pt 2...?

Can't decide if this is really badly acted, or just actors struggling with really bad dialog. But I rather think it's both. Can't decide if the ghastly world's worst examples of "brits abroad" are supposed to be a spoof. Really can't decide why I even watched a second episode. It doesn't get better - quite the contrary.

Headlined as "from the people who brought you Castle". Don't get your hopes up. This falls a long way short of Castle. Poor dialog, trite cookie-cutter plots, and no-one in the same league as Nathan Fillion to lift it out of the mire.

I was prepared to suspend belief and allow some artistic licence.... with all these big names in I assume SOME of them must've read the script. But clearly not. Bad science - a given for hollywood sadly. Bad script, atrocious dialog, a plot... if you can call it that, knocked up by a 10 year old before bed-time. Just bad.

The only reason it wasn't a waste of more than half an hour is, I hit Eject. I rarely do this - it really says more than anything else how poor this is.

Basically, it's a stock zombie movie. I don't understand the appeal of zombie movies, given that once someone has woken up one morning and said "Hey, I know, lets do a zombie movie!" that's the last new idea they have. After that, it seems you can just crank the handle and turn out a standard-plot zombie movie and the studio will cut you a cheque and kiss your boots.

PS - if you like zombie movies, you'll probably like this one too.

The proposition is that Hitler had a daughter, who has been smuggled into America, and is now one of a small number of women about to be in a position of power. All of a sudden one bunch of people are trying to prove this and another are trying to kill them. Nazis are coming out of the woodwork. The script writers have clearly read a few Ludlum novels and maybe even a Deighton, and then thought they could do as well. They can't. Not helped by plastic acting and dull direction. There are better ways to spend 2 hours. Obtain and read a copy of Ludlum's "The Holcroft Covanent" and you might see something this film wanted to be when it was conceived, but it never made it even half way there. Watch something good instead, like Verhoven's "Black Book".

I watched "Transporter" without having seen any reviews or clues - and thoroughly enjoyed it. Just right.

But this? Don't bother. It could've worked. It didn't *need* the utterly implausible stunts and effects. They added nothing, they took away any possible hope of credibility. You can't *suspend* disbelief that far, every time you settle down to enjoy, something *else* happens which just makes you go "nope - that's daft".

There's no problem with the underlying plot. (Well, if it has a hole or two, they're no bigger than we're expected to swallow with any thriller.) Acting... Statham is just fine, and I look forward to seeing more of him. Where did it all go horribly wrong? I think the problem is the first film turned out so popular that the budget for the second was so big they just couldn't resist souping up the scenes and cramming in more FX.

This was very disappointing.

For *forty* years kids of all ages have been watching Thunderbirds on TV. So not surprising that someone decided it was time to big-screen it.

It's a pity that they just though "ah - a big target audience, so lots of moolah" and didn't also take the time out to think "I wonder what makes a show that remains popular for FORTY YEARS." Someone clearly decided to make this a film for *young* kids, and ignore the fact that the TV series was enjoyed by kids of *all* ages (I mean, anyone still breathing!) but I have to wonder, even with that dubious decision, why they had to ignore the obvious.

For example. One thing kids clearly *love* in any TV show is ritual. That's why, whenever it's time to launch the thunderbirds, the TV show shows the *whole* thing, people sliding down chutes, bits of island opening, etc. So why then decide to gratuitously change one of the big ritual elements. The thunderbirds are, any kid over the age of two knows, the *machiens*, not the *people*. The *people* are "members of International Rescue". Kids want to grow up to *be* members of international rescue. Only small ford motorcars want to grow up to be thunderbirds.

I'm not going to pick up on all that is wrong with this - the list is just too long. But three more points I feel I have to make.

1) The *music* was a *major* factor in the original series. It was even used on the trails for the TV release of the film in the UK. Since the new soundtrack is naff, you have to wonder why they didn't just come to an agreement with Barry Grey and use the original music - would've lifted it! 2) You would think that of *all* people Frakes would have known better than to be caught by the Wesley Effect. After playing second fiddle to Will Wheaton for so many years in TNG, you'd think he might have noticed that whilst film and TV execs often seem to think you have to make a film *about* a ten year old kid if you want it to appeal *to* ten year old kids, not only is this clearly NOT the case (see above - for forty years kids have been enjoying Thunderbirds on TV and been happy to want to grow up to fly a thunderbird, or pretend they already have!) but also...

3) it doesn't work. My nephews are 8 and 10. They have been watching Thunderbirds tapes since they could prop themselves up in front of the telly and are major fans. They hate the film.

This film got bad reviews; I have to wonder what sort of a film the reviewers were expecting. It's not a "heavy" or "serious" action film, it's a comedy "action flic", viewing it as anything else is daft. And viewing it as a comedy action flic, it's a total hoot. The girls are cute, the music's cool, the gags are a giggle, the plot is more plausible than that of many "serious" action films... OK - except the bit with the helicopter. But hey, whoever said the laws of physics applied in Hollywood?

And if that's not enough, you can always play "spot the movie reference" - I don't believe anyone got them all even with the help of the IMDb "Movie Connections" link. And it has John Cleese in it. What more could you ask for?

This film entirely fails. It fails to engage, it fails to entertain, it even fails to amuse.

Based on a video game, with some attempt to create a "comic book" style, but there's no meat on the bones, and the bones are rickety. VanDamme is VanDamme. When it comes time to kick someone, he's your man. Up until then, he looks pretty. Why has someone tattooed a US flag on his shoulder? Minogue is very easy on the eye, especially in the blue vest. And she isn't singing. But there's any number of ways of admiring pictures of Minogue and most of them can be effected without having to hear her singing if it's not to your taste! Ming-Na is also easy on the eye especially in the very silly dress or the black catsuit, and she's not quite so ubiquitous, so that could be this is the film's saving grace. She also has the only role that comes close to having anything in it to work with.

Raol Julia tried hard, but even here the character just doesn't work. I suggest you watch The Addams Family, which is brilliantly written and really gives Julia a chance to show his not inconsiderable talents.

At the end of the day, this is a waste of good celluloid. Watch something else. Anything.

Well, as an "action movie" it's not bad. Turn your brain off for a couple of hours and enjoy the special effects and the... well that's about it.

As SciFi it fails big time - because the "science" is just crap. Why some writers thinks that if they're writing science fiction they can forget the science and concentrate on the fiction, I don't know - because the end result is a cinema full of people thinking "don't be daft" and "it would never..." and "but it doesn't..." and so forth - which is a major impediment to enjoyment of the film.

Anyway, didn't someone save the world by burrowing into it and letting off nukes only last year? You think they'd have learned by now.

Good grief. Someone *paid* actual *money* to make this?

If you want to watch people having sex, buy a porn movie, and be prepared to put up with lousy acting, ghastly dialog, and a plot (if any) that a two year old wrote.

This is utterly bizarre. Lousy acting, ghastly dialog, a plot a two year old would have eschewed... and lousy sex. OK, someone wanted to make it, someone put up a budget, all this I understand. What I don't understand is - why is it on my TV screen?

(Except it isn't - I can surely find a channel with something better on. Even if it's white noise.)

Click

Well, it has John Cleese and Rowan Atkinson and Whoopi Goldberg, and Seth Green and so it had to be worth a look despite the ill omen of the trailer. I'm just glad I didn't pay to go see it - I hate leaving the cinema half way.... Well the aforementioned did their best to salvage it, Seth Green in particular tried to find something in the lines to turn into a character but there's nothing there. The gags are telegraphed so far in advance you can tell what they are before the opening credits. And the production is poor, equipment in shot, poor sound effects... This was clearly a film with a limited budget, and most of that was spent on getting some famous names on the poster. And presumably they hung on to the rest of the budget to spend on advertising...

I'm off to watch some paint dry now. I'll be way more entertaining.

This is a superb series, shows how well it can be done. Animation is excellent, esp for it's era, and the English voices nicely casted and well "acted". (I presume it's also available with french actors speaking in french - wonder if that's as good...) I've only had one opportunity to see it - and would set the alarm to wake up early enough to watch it on TV on Sunday mornings! If it ever comes out on video or DVD (so far as I know it hasn't yet) grab a copy for your kids - and watch it when they're asleep. If you don't have kids, get it anyway. Start making kids if necessary. :)

The TV guide said this was a "TV movie" and that normally makes me at least look to see what else is on. But then I noticed it was directed by John Badham. (Who's he? Click the link - bet you recognise a LOT of those films!) I decided it had to be worth a look and I'm glad I watched it. It's nicely put together, a thriller that doesn't rely on magic computers, or fancy special effects. Nor is it filled with unlikely occurrences and other evidence that the "artistic licence" has been out of its cupboard. It poses some intriguing questions - I like a film that leaves you thinking "what would I do if...". Nice performances from Tripplehorn and Parke.