10 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Hitman (I) (2007)
4/10
Unsatisfying action and a largely incoherent story makes this a movie not worth watching
27 November 2007
Warning: Spoilers
A disturbing trend that seems to have no end in sight is the constant making of movies based upon video games. The fact of the matter is that these movies largely end up being horrendous misinterpretations of the source material. As evidenced by such cinematic horror shows like the Resident Evil movies, Street Fighter, Super Mario Brothers, Tomb Raider, and every movie by Uwe Boll. Of course there is the occasional movie that proves the maxim wrong, I for one enjoyed the Final Fantasy movie: The Spirits Within. Granted it had next to nothing to do with the game series apart from the name, but I was able to enjoy it. There was also the Silent Hill movie, that was great due to the fact that it was able to maintain a majority of the atmosphere from the games, and the plot was largely consistent with the mythos of the Silent Hill series. Unfortunately the latest movie to try to adapt a video game has largely failed to take even the smallest modicum of what made the games enjoyable.

Hit-man, a movie based on a good action series, isn't exactly a bad movie. If you go into the movie without having played the games by IO Interactive, then you'll in all likelihood be entertained by the action this movie has to offer. Fans of the games however will most likely be left feeling cheated by the movie, and it's radical changing of the main character of the series. In the movie it explains that 47 and the other bald headed assassins were chosen at birth to become guinea pigs of a top-secret plot to breed trained killers who feel no remorse. Now if this reminds you of anything, you're a nerd, and yes it's totally ripping off part of the plot for the old TV show: Dark Angel. I don't mean to go all nerdy video game fan boy on you, but, in the games 47 wasn't chosen at birth to become the bad ass assassin he is today. He's a clone of four major criminals and a scientist to make a flawless human. Not once in the entire series of games do they state whether or not 47 has a childhood. If they had felt the need to do an origin story for 47, why not just base it off the story elements of the original Hit-man: Codename 47 game? And throw in bits of the missions from Contracts.

Before I continue on with the review I would like to state the fact that this movie was written by Skip Woods. The man that brought us the terrible movie Swordfish. While I had nothing overly against that film, it bears mention due to the fact that at times the plot of that movie was positively horrid, and as such Woods needs to be beaten with an oar.

The movie starts out with an Interpol agent returning to his home, 47 is there sitting in his chair. Aiming his gun at fearless Dougray Scott. The movie then keenly informs us that the bulk of the story takes place three months prior to this scene. 47 has been hired to take out the Russian prime minister Mikhail Belicoff. The hit goes off with seemingly no problem, but Diana, 47's handler for the Agency (called "The Organization" in this) informs him that there's a witness he needs to eliminate. The witness, Nika is played by the wonderful Olga Kurylenko, when 47 goes to eliminate Nika another hit-man from Agency arrives to kill 47 and Nika. 47 escapes and confronts Diana about how Nika wasn't a witness, and whether or not someone at the agency double crossed him. While this is happening the Russian police is sending in its crack squad of cops who look like they were stolen from the anime Jin-Roh: The Wolf Brigade, to capture or kill 47. Dougray has a problem with this as he wants 47 alive for questioning, as he's wanted for multiple hundreds of murders across the globe. How he was to establish it was only 47, I'll never know.

After a moderately decent action scene 47 kidnaps Nika and takes her to a St. Petersburg train station where he's attacked by a cadre of Agency trained hit men. The problem I have with this part is the fact that the assassins are fundamentally working toward the same goal, kill 47. At this point when 47 is outgunned by three other assassins, instead of just ventilating 47 they aim their guns at each other. At which point 47 proposes that they die with honor, and brandish some wakizashi swords and proceed to fight. The fight scene is decent enough, but it was just pointless. Where was 47 hiding those little buggers, and why didn't 47's would-be killers just kill him and then go knock off for a while at the nearest bar? I would go further into the plot, but really, I don't feel like spoiling it any more than I already have. Suffice to say that I didn't exactly enjoy the story to the movie. It took far too many liberties with the character of 47, and far too much of it seemed implausible from the perspective of realism. Also there's the questionable choice in casting Timothy Olyphant as the cold steely eyed assassin: Mr. 47. I don't hate the guy, it's just that I think he's a highly inappropriate choice. Granted he was a decent enough actor in that atrocious show Deadwood. He just looks too young, and not at all what a ruthless killer should look like.

Overall the movie is a mediocre action film that people who've never played the games will most likely enjoy. Fans of the series however would probably hate it due to the large number of liberties they take with the character and source material. Overall the movie is not worth the time to watch it.
96 out of 169 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
San Franpsycho (2006 Video)
2/10
Well I'd hate to be contrary to the other reviewers but...
17 October 2006
Warning: Spoilers
The movie was pretty bad. It's not so much a script problem. It's just that the movie is really boring in terms of pacing. The movie just seems to plod along at a slow, agonizing rate. The story in San Franpsycho is that there's a serial killer on the loose who is killing morally corrupt individuals (maybe I read too much into it, but hey, it's my nature apparently) after The San Franpsycho kills a pair of people under the Golden Gate Bridge we're introduced to one of the main characters of the film: Joe Estevez (brother of Martin Sheen) as a curmudgeony cop named Bill Culp. Bill is currently trying to hunt down the killer (seriously he doesn't have a name, he's just The Killer), and he is trying to coerce a local news reporter named Rita to help him with his investigation, Bill is the stereotypical hard-edged cop and he threatens Rita to throw her in jail for obstruction of justice. Anyway a few scenes pass by and suddenly Rita finds a letter left by the psychopath (He's a cold blooded psychopath!) and she has a change of heart and tells Bill and his partner Joe about it and help them with the investigation.

The movie tries to be a taut murder-thriller, but sort of just fails at that. It's much like the movie The Black Dahlia it tries to be tense but it just is unbelievable in terms of that. The movie tries to be serious throughout, but it has scenes like where The Killer masturbates (obviously a fan of gore porn what with lines like: "ooh blood on her" or something to that effect) and Joe Estevez hitting the table going: "He's a cold blooded murderer!" I admit to chuckling more than once at the movie, even though I'm sure it was intended to be a deadly serious movie.

One of the only positive points the movie has going for it is the fact that I didn't pay money to see it (huzzah netflix). And it's sad because I could see some good in their movies after watching The Damned. Sure the movie had its fair share of flaws, but it was enjoyable. Sadly though San Franpsycho has nothing going for it. Granted it has an okay script it's nothing too grand, but it could've been interesting. Instead what you get is a murder thriller that fails to thrill or have even vaguely enjoyable deaths. Also the other reviews claim that the movie has "a great twist ending that's shocking" apparently I was watching a different movie because by about the one hour mark I sort of figured out what was going to happen. The ending didn't shock me in the least bit. I would go on insulting this wreck of a movie but I don't think I will. Long story short this movie is a boring uninspired thriller (I use that term loosely) that fails to have the "Hitchcockian thrills" that another reviewer claims to have a predictable ending, bland deaths, acting with all of the emotion of a plank of wood, and a decent soundtrack.

I'm sure others will try to defend this with the usual: It was a low budget movie, they did the best they could with such a low budget, and all that other nonsense. But when you get right down to it there was very little that they could've really spent that budget on, there was very little special effects work, the soundtrack sounds like it might've been recycled from Hood of the Living Dead or The Damned, and it's the same damn crew from those two films. This movie really reminds me a lot of another low budget flick that was no good, and it was called Mr. Jingles, the two are about the same quality, they fail to deliver anything close to enjoyment and should fade quickly into obscurity.
4 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Damned (2006 Video)
4/10
A somewhat decent picture
5 October 2006
Warning: Spoilers
*May Contain Spoilers* I absolutely hated the previous Quiroz bros. film I saw (Hood of the Living Dead), I hated it so very very much. So needless to say I was expecting their vampire movie The Damned to be more or less like Hood of the Living Dead, but with vampires. However I must say that this movie was actually pretty enjoyable.

Many of the actors from Hood return in this picture, but for some reason I liked them better in this than in Hood (I attribute it to the fact that this movie had a better story/script), they also seemed to be able to act better in this movie than in Hood. The story was pretty entertaining, if not a tad stale and bland, but it served its purpose (chances are you're not here for a deep movie story, but for vampire action) and did a somewhat good job setting up the various fight scenes between the humans and the vampires.

But sadly, this movie is not all that great when you get right down to it. If you read any of the synopsis' for the movie or seen trailers for The Damned it makes it seem as though there's going to be a lot of vampire killing (I don't mean to nitpick, but I don't think four people make a clan) or that Todd Bridges seems like this big badass vampire hunter mercenary guy, when really he's just an amateur vigilante. It also makes it seem as though there's going to be a hell of a lot more feedings (I think there was a grand total of two), and that there would have been more fight scenes with the vampires, but sadly there wasn't. Another thing that detracts from the enjoyment of this movie is (in my opinion) the inappropriate use of "fast-paced punk rock." During seemingly calm scenes there's that punk-rock playing (such as when a detective is at an old abandoned house), and during the scenes when the vampires do strike, it's sort of this fast paced moody stereotypical horror music. It seems like it should've been the other way around.

The movie is also too damn short. I don't know if it was due to their budget or what, but the movie just sort of whizzed by and then ended. Also don't expect much closure from the main story, as the ending leaves it open for a sequel (what is with the Quiroz brothers and not ending their horror movies?!). Also don't expect the world out of the special effects (especially when they kill the vampires :shudder: bad CG) and don't expect Oscar-caliber acting (not that you would from a low-budget flick such as this), for its purpose The Damned is a somewhat decent picture. Its not too great, but its not god-awful, and it's certainly a hell of a lot better than Hood of the Living Dead, which they happen to reference in this movie, but it has a lot of little problems that I think take away from the quality of it, it also really bugged me that the cover art for the DVD was amazingly similar to that of the Russian vampire movie Night Watch, but that's just me.

There are of course better vampire movies out there but for a low-budget indie movie it's not the worst one around. Despite the cheesy effects, the annoying soundtrack (yep, disliked the punk rock), the poor acting at some points (the principle actors did a fairly good job), and random theories about vampires (what other movie says vampires can only enter a house if they're invited in?) The Damned was a bad movie, but an enjoyable one at that.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Great set designs, but there's really nothing else to recommend it
20 September 2006
I'll admit I've never read the book that this movie was based upon. Maybe that's part of the reason I disliked this movie as much as I did. However if this movie is any indicator to the quality of the novel I don't think I'll read it.

The Black Dahlia is loosely based upon the murder of actress Elizabeth Short which was adapted into a novel by James Ellroy (I've never read any books by him so I won't be bringing him or his novels into this). When watching the movie it became painfully obvious that the murder was not to be the focus of the movie. Which in my opinion is a huge mistake. Instead, what you get instead of a taut murder mystery (which is what I expected to see!) you get a melodramatic film-noir movie that ultimately aspires to put people asleep or completely turn them off to smoking.

I don't know where the blame should lie for this train wreck of a movie. But just so no one feels left out I shall bring the writer, director and actors into this. The writing for the movie is fairly decent, at face value does what a lot of other noir movies have done in the past. The set designs looked fantastic, and did a good job of capturing the look of the forties (not that I was alive during that decade, hurray books) rather well. But it must be pointed out that the movie should've focused primarily on the murder of Elizabeth Short and not made it a subplot to the sex life of Josh Hartnett. More than an hour passes by when they just focus on the fact that Josh Hartnett was a boxer and fought against Aaron Eckhart and that he has slowly but surely lost it and becomes obsessed with the Dahlia and Bobby DeWitt or that he secretly loved Scarlett Johannson, but is currently involved in a steamy affair with Hillary Swank.

At more than one point during the movie I seriously considered walking out, but I couldn't justify it. Just when the movie did start to get interesting the movie ended. So after a near two and a half hours of continual boredom I was left with a feeling of anger and remorse. Anger at the fact that I wasted near ten bucks on this movie. And remorse for the fact that I could've used that same amount of money and rented a better movie instead. This movie fails on just about every level. Even the sex scene with Scarlett Johannson (who happens to be one of my favorite actresses) fails to titillate, and it just bothered me that Hillary Swank was in this movie (despite what many people say, this reviewer finds her to be most unattractive).

If you've read the book, you'll probably enjoy it. If you're a huge fan of film-noir and aren't expecting that much of a murder mystery movie, you'll probably enjoy it. I just cannot recommend this movie to anyone. Especially those who are genuinely interested in the real Black Dahlia murder.
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
One of the best movies I've seen
17 April 2006
*Minor Spoilers* (for the first five minutes of the film)

Like so many others I went to see The Hills Have Eyes remake with lowered expectations. I thought it would be a terrible remake in the vein of The Fog, Night of the Living Dead, or Texas Chainsaw Massacre. However after the movie began and the people in the hills viciously murdered four (maybe five) people I was instantly hooked. This movie is by far one of the best horror movies ever made. The movie starts out relatively peaceful with a little text scroll explaining how the good old' US used to test nuclear weapons in the New Mexican desert, and it shows some government officials seeing if the area is still irradiated when suddenly someone gets a pickax through their head. Then it shows some actual nuclear test footage playing over a nice charming song (all the while showing people who were mutated due to radiation), then it proceeds to play out like the original '70s Hills Have Eyes, with a family making their way through the New Mexican desert on their way to California. The story as a whole doesn't differ all that much from Wes Craven's Hills. That's not to say it doesn't, but the main story actually follows the originals quite a bit. One key difference to note is the number of the hill people, there's more of them in this gory remake than in the original. Also the violence, there is a hell of a lot more of it in this version of the movie. Fans of the original Hills Have Eyes will definitely like this movie, if for nothing else, the fact that it actually adheres to the storyline of the original (Character names too, it even has the dogs!), and horror fans will love the movie as well. This movie is one of those that some people will look down on (mainly due to the violence), but others will love. Overall this was a great movie, it is definitely worth shelling out eight bucks to see. This movie is most definitely one of the best movies of this year, and is certainly the best remake ever made.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
This movie makes me want a Bruce Campbell's Right Hand 2
4 February 2006
For quite some time my friends had been telling me about this nifty little Japanese zombie film called "Stacy." So the other day when wandering around a video store I noticed that they had it, so I rented it. The word bizarre comes to mind when talking about this film.

The movie starts out with three little kids poking a dead sixteen year old girl (I'd wager they thought she was asleep), the girl reawakens as a Stacy (the official word for the zombies) and kills the little kids. The movie has a rather interesting take on the zombie apocalypse. Instead of affecting everyone it only affects girls between the ages of fifteen and seventeen. To combat the threat of the Stacies the Japanese government created the Romero Repeat Kill Squad (an obvious reference George A. Romero), the Repeat Kill Squad is for those who are too wimpy to kill their own daughters. Apparently to "repeat kill" a Stacy one has to chop the body up into 165 different pieces. So to try to combat the Stacy threat people are encouraged to kill their daughters, and they even sell these implements of death in stores and infomercials, they even have a pamphlet on how to repeat kill the Stacies.

This movie has a neat concept and a pretty cool storyline, but it just sort of fell apart. The movie is just very campy, and at least it doesn't try to take itself too seriously. There are some points in the movie that you'll find yourself asking "why the hell did they do that?!" Perhaps if I read the book in which it's based the movie as a whole would've made more sense, I don't know. But as it stands Stacy is a somewhat enjoyable film that is only marred by its occasional annoying scene, and a truly annoying ending.
5 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Æon Flux (2005)
6/10
A decent action movie, but is better suited to fans of the animated series
3 December 2005
Because people who have never seen the animated series on MTV will most likely be lost when seeing this film. I myself have not seen the series, and was able to follow the storyline, albeit with confusion.

The movie takes place four hundred years after a strange disease has eliminated 99% of the human population. The remaining populace lives in the last city on Earth: Bregna, where people can disappear without a trace. The self-proclaimed leader of Earth is Trevor Goodchild, who has a military force that does away with dissidents and all-around rabble-rousers. However despite the force that takes care of malcontent citizens there is a group of people who are seeking a way to be free, this is a group called the Monicans. Who to the best of my knowledge consists of about six people (maybe more, I haven't seen the series), the most prominent member of this underground group is Aeon (pronounced eon) Flux (played by the ever attractive Charlize Theron).

Near the beginning of the movie Aeon's only family, her sister Una, is killed by Trevor Goodchild's soldiers. After an indeterminate amount of time Aeon is charged with the task of killing Goodchild.

The plot in this movie is really rather baffling, it certainly does contain a fair amount of head-scratching moments. The plot probably makes sense to fans of the MTV series, but for the uninitiated it will be rather confusing, and seem a bit contrived. But really all you need to know is Charlize Theron wears some rather revealing outfits, and kills a bunch of security guards.

The action in this movie, while plentiful, seems slow and just sort of pasted on just to make the movie seem more interesting than it really is. Then again if you're expecting Oscar caliber action you really need to lower your expectations. I also have to wonder why this movie wasn't rated R. There are a plethora of scenes that contain almost nudity, that only serve to make male viewers swear at the fact that if this were rated R they'd see Theron's goods. In fact while in the theater I heard many a person complain about that.

To put it simply this movie is just a run of the mill action film that has a simple, yet baffling storyline, boring action sequences, and a few scenes of almost nudity. Fans of the series will probably love this movie, I'm not one of them, and felt that this movie was just okay. And I may be wrong but I'm pretty sure that if 99% of the world's population died, there'd be fewer people than five million.

6, out of 10.
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
A poor Evil Dead rip off
27 October 2005
I had heard about this movie (Desperate Souls) from watching a trailer for it on my uncut DVD of Saw. In all honesty, the trailer is by far the best thing about this wretched piece of crap. Now I can try to respect the story, it did sound rather interesting (if not unimaginative), and sounded like it would be a decent Evil Dead type of movie. However about five minutes into the movie it quit being okay, and it turned into a unbearable crapfest. This movie takes the words "poor lighting," and "drab scenery" to a whole new level. The directors also seem to be obsessed with heavy metal music. Most if not all of the lame soundtrack is loud unintelligible heavy metal butt rock. There is a story in this movie, but after five minutes of bad lighting, terrible acting, you'll kind of just give up on it. It is obvious that the writers didn't really care enough to put in a coherent storyline. Or you know, people who know how to act, and I suppose actually being able to see things in a movie is too much to ask for. Does that sound so unreasonable? Apparentaly so, in only one or two scenes are things really noticeable, the rest of it are damn near impossible to see. And in one scene there sounds like a cool battle is going on, but you can't see anything. What the hell?! And I must say they really went all out with the scenery (if you can't sense the sarcasm you need to be smacked). Further to the point this movie had very little to do with the trailer, and the trailer was the best part of this debacle of the film. Bad lighting, terrible acting, drab scenery, things I construed as homo eroticism (a man calling another man buttercup?), bland DVD setup, and no special features on said DVD. Avoid this movie like the plague, if your wanting to watch a movie like this, avoid this and watch one of the Evil Dead movies.
5 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
It's still bad, but not as bad as originally thought.
10 September 2005
*May Contain Spoilers* A few weeks after I had originally wrote my review for Hood of the Living Dead I realized that I may have been a bit too harsh on this movie. Which is why I decided I would do something I had never done before. Review the same movie again. Don't get me wrong, I still don't like the movie, I still think it's dreck, and I still think the zombies don't look all that zombie-ish. The story in the movie is still in my opinion, weak and rather lame. The story is about a guy named Rick, who works as a scientist (that just happens to be working on a serum thing that heals sick cells, in animals) and his brother Germaine, the two aren't exactly on the best of terms (my my, an original plot point) and argue a lot. One day Germaine is shot in a drive-by shooting, and Rick calls up his scientist buddy to bring the serum to try to resuscitate Germaine(whereas most people would've called 911, but whatever), naturally the serum fails and Germaine "dies" (if that didn't happen there'd have been no movie), after the police and the coroner (until the end of time I will still think that maybe the paramedics should've shown up) leave the scene shows the coroner van (which I still believe was just someone's van with a "coroner" decal thrown on the side), and Germaine returning to life to attack and kill the paramedics. I would talk more about the plot, but I feel that if I reveal more about the story you wouldn't want to watch it (and we wouldn't want that now would we?), but suffice to say that the story (in my opinion at least) meanders and is rather slow moving (pun not intended). As I've previously said in my review the zombies don't look all that much like zombies, I still think they look like they've been in a bar fight. That's not to say that they should all be decaying and whatnot, but still there should at least be bite marks on the victims. Also I still don't like the fact that the director(s) continually switch up the pace at which the zombies move. They couldn't really seem to decide on whether or not to have the zombies run or shamble (as most zombie movies do), don't get me wrong, I'm all for running zombies but make up your minds people. In one scene the zombie runs toward the living, and in the other he just shambles to them. And sometimes they just don't seem believable (yes I know their fictitious creatures but still), I am of course referring to the zombie that runs his hand on the wall as though he were walking through a dark living room, and I still don't like the zombie who is lying on the ground, gets shot, then jerks like he was just shot. The sound in the movie also bothered me, mainly the music, which while it may have just been my copy of the film seemed pretty much non-existent. Music in a movie is important folks. Especially when the sound editing does sound like the director just took a friends camcorder and shot a little zombie flick. The acting is still atrocious (in my opinion) and is on par with the American "actors" from the Japanese zombie movie Junk. The movie is still bad, almost House of the Dead bad, it's better, no doubt about that, but then again that's not saying much. It's not the worst movie out there, and it is better than a lot of direct to video movies that are out there but at the end of the day wasn't good. I also think the movie moves really really slow, despite the fact that it is only an hour and twenty or so minutes (and yes, I still don't like the opening song). This is the type of movie I think is well-suited to be premiered on the Sci-Fi network. Which is why I am obligated to give this debacle of a film a one out of ten. But think of it this way, at least it's not a negative one.
3 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
One of Romero's Greatest
29 June 2005
Warning: Spoilers
*May Contain Spoilers*

This was really an excellent movie, it easily ranks up with Dawn of the Dead (the original not the remake) as one of the best zombie movies made.

As with seemingly all of Romero's movies (the Dead series, or particularly The Crazies) this movie is a social satire. It shows that even though the world has gone to hell, money and prestige are still coveted by a vast majority of people. I also like the fact that it shows the zombies getting smarter through out. Dawn hinted to the zombies dormant memories of their former existence, and Day proved that zombies could use guns. Romero also seems more sympathetic toward the zombies in this movie.

This was a great movie, and well worth the wait, a lot of people will complain that the smarter zombies ruin the whole thing, but I think it's because they're getting smarter that makes it a lot better. Overall it's a really good movie, although it does have a few questionable aspects it is none the less a great movie to see. I'm already waiting for the DVD of it.
1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed