162 reviews
Proudly proclaiming itself to have "More cocaine that Casino, more guns than Goodfellas and more swearing than Scarface", Nick Love's 2005 movie "The Business" is a rags to riches tale of a young criminal who escapes certain jail time to the "Costa Del crime" in Gibraltar and Spain to go into business with a self-made gangster.
The idea that this movie somehow should belong in the same category as Casino, Goodfellas and Scarface seemed a very tall order, and unfortunately it actually serves more as an ironic epitaph as it never even gets to the same level as any of its more famous US counterparts.
Overall, the movie isn't too bad. The plot is interesting and well developed, the characters are well cut and the pace is crisp and to the point; but I felt that there were parts that were obviously tailor made for the Lad's mag market it was quite targeted and marketed at; for this I point to the over-the-top swearing, constant MTV cut-away shots and a wide-boy faux British Cockney gangster attitude that is not only annoying, and frustrating to watch.
As many montages of money, drugs and air-plane drops you can muster will not hide the fact that plot points are glossed over very quickly; the back story of how they, in Spain, got in touch with Columbians drug barons who were seemingly happy to fly the thousands of miles to Spain to do one small deal seemed very unrealistic.
One thing I did like was the political, greasing of the local mayor to ensure their supply is not touched by the police and law enforcement; however when a certain member of the British Cockney gang is "killed" I do wish they'd explain how and who, rather than just going for the big shock value.
Disappointingly, there was very little of the "Costa Del crime" concept that was never really developed; instead the film is really just about a very small group of 30-40 year old's who think they are the biggest thing to ever exist; only for them to realise actually they're just a lot of bark and not much bite.
And this is the main problem I have with "The Business". For all its talk of being a gangster movie, its just a small bunch of mouthy cockney gangsters who play up to the Lad's mag crowd, and shoves in random drug moments and pop-culture references in a bid to make itself edgy and hip.
In addition, the movie looks and feels very cheap; with a limited or low budget it hides its low quality behind the veneer of expensive villas and sunny beaches.
Should this be in the same category as Casino, Goodfellas and Scarface? Nope, not at all; its not even in the same league and my advise would be - if you want to watch a modern gangster movie it's probably best to stick to the American gangster movies or, if you want to watch a British one, see Layer Cake instead.
Overall, the film quality is very poor and the Lad's mag gangster flick's claims to be in the same league as US gangster movies actually serves as a weighty reminder of just how good those movies are, and how poor this is in comparison.
4/10
The idea that this movie somehow should belong in the same category as Casino, Goodfellas and Scarface seemed a very tall order, and unfortunately it actually serves more as an ironic epitaph as it never even gets to the same level as any of its more famous US counterparts.
Overall, the movie isn't too bad. The plot is interesting and well developed, the characters are well cut and the pace is crisp and to the point; but I felt that there were parts that were obviously tailor made for the Lad's mag market it was quite targeted and marketed at; for this I point to the over-the-top swearing, constant MTV cut-away shots and a wide-boy faux British Cockney gangster attitude that is not only annoying, and frustrating to watch.
As many montages of money, drugs and air-plane drops you can muster will not hide the fact that plot points are glossed over very quickly; the back story of how they, in Spain, got in touch with Columbians drug barons who were seemingly happy to fly the thousands of miles to Spain to do one small deal seemed very unrealistic.
One thing I did like was the political, greasing of the local mayor to ensure their supply is not touched by the police and law enforcement; however when a certain member of the British Cockney gang is "killed" I do wish they'd explain how and who, rather than just going for the big shock value.
Disappointingly, there was very little of the "Costa Del crime" concept that was never really developed; instead the film is really just about a very small group of 30-40 year old's who think they are the biggest thing to ever exist; only for them to realise actually they're just a lot of bark and not much bite.
And this is the main problem I have with "The Business". For all its talk of being a gangster movie, its just a small bunch of mouthy cockney gangsters who play up to the Lad's mag crowd, and shoves in random drug moments and pop-culture references in a bid to make itself edgy and hip.
In addition, the movie looks and feels very cheap; with a limited or low budget it hides its low quality behind the veneer of expensive villas and sunny beaches.
Should this be in the same category as Casino, Goodfellas and Scarface? Nope, not at all; its not even in the same league and my advise would be - if you want to watch a modern gangster movie it's probably best to stick to the American gangster movies or, if you want to watch a British one, see Layer Cake instead.
Overall, the film quality is very poor and the Lad's mag gangster flick's claims to be in the same league as US gangster movies actually serves as a weighty reminder of just how good those movies are, and how poor this is in comparison.
4/10
One night I couldn't sleep and I suddenly found myself watching "Satan's Cheerleadeers" thinking it was one of those Russ Myer films but I could get over just how bad it was. Badly acted, badly shot, woeful film quality and a total bemusement of what was going on.
At one stage it's a "horror" film which is never scary and on the other it uses "sexy" cheerleaders who seem to give sultry looks, stand with their weight on one leg professing about sex in a deeply Russ Myer way - that would have been okay if the story made any sense or, indeed went anywhere.
This film was just awful, woeful and just plain bad.
At one stage it's a "horror" film which is never scary and on the other it uses "sexy" cheerleaders who seem to give sultry looks, stand with their weight on one leg professing about sex in a deeply Russ Myer way - that would have been okay if the story made any sense or, indeed went anywhere.
This film was just awful, woeful and just plain bad.
Since Chan moved from Hong Kong to Hollywood, it seems he's carved himself into an impossible situation where directors, screen writers and producers seem to want Chan to do virtually the same plot, ideas and stunts with a little "twist" or as we like to call it, the fish-out-water plot.
I feel that Jackie's fall from the mega heights of 80s and 90s action hero to a bore draw continues in this film, which has elements of different ideas from different films put together for (what was deemed at the time to be) the most expensive Hong Kong movie of all time - although I can't really see where the money was spent.
In fact it feels like they put a bunch of ideas into a hat and pulled out words to form a plot, story and said "okay, let's throw in some Matrix sci-fi CGI and that will do". The result is credulous to say the least.
Chan also, like other films before, surrounds himself with younger women in this case, the fantastically eye-pleasing Claire Forlani (and her very striking eyes), although this eye candy doesn't help with the plot, which looks and smells like a poor-man's version of the Golden Child.
I didn't really like this movie the CGI took too much away from the danger, risk and stunt work that we all know Chan for. Indeed, CGI has already taken so much away from stunt work that I think this film underpins the very reason why audiences do not feel the same when they see a "real" stunt compared to one done with CGI the reason is quite simple, CGI stunts offer no connection between the viewer and fear.
Overall, this movie has its moments but they are few and far between, this film highlights Chan's fall from action hero to a children film hero - bore draw.
Chan's recent eagerness to get back to Hong Kong dramatic movies and hard nosed action spectacular show that he is coming back but I think the damage might already been done because of poor films such as The Medallion.
Overall: 2/10.
I feel that Jackie's fall from the mega heights of 80s and 90s action hero to a bore draw continues in this film, which has elements of different ideas from different films put together for (what was deemed at the time to be) the most expensive Hong Kong movie of all time - although I can't really see where the money was spent.
In fact it feels like they put a bunch of ideas into a hat and pulled out words to form a plot, story and said "okay, let's throw in some Matrix sci-fi CGI and that will do". The result is credulous to say the least.
Chan also, like other films before, surrounds himself with younger women in this case, the fantastically eye-pleasing Claire Forlani (and her very striking eyes), although this eye candy doesn't help with the plot, which looks and smells like a poor-man's version of the Golden Child.
I didn't really like this movie the CGI took too much away from the danger, risk and stunt work that we all know Chan for. Indeed, CGI has already taken so much away from stunt work that I think this film underpins the very reason why audiences do not feel the same when they see a "real" stunt compared to one done with CGI the reason is quite simple, CGI stunts offer no connection between the viewer and fear.
Overall, this movie has its moments but they are few and far between, this film highlights Chan's fall from action hero to a children film hero - bore draw.
Chan's recent eagerness to get back to Hong Kong dramatic movies and hard nosed action spectacular show that he is coming back but I think the damage might already been done because of poor films such as The Medallion.
Overall: 2/10.
Okay, I'll be honest, I didn't like the first Charlies Angels movie - it was too fluffy, but I did like the action, some of the jokes, and most importantly I enjoyed Crispin Glover's Thin Man.
So what happened in the second movie? It seems the movie producers just drove a dumper truck filled with money and said they wanted to make a summer action movie without actually thinking about how the audience is actually meant to enjoy a movie that is more about personal ego than it is about the story, plot or stunts.
In this sequel, the girls are hired by the government to recover two small rings that hold the entire list of people on the witness protection scheme. I don't know about you but I felt it was odd that so much data could be stored into such small rings, not only that - they were so damn easy to steal too! Then we get to the whole subplots of Dillion's romance with an Irish thug and how she can't kill him but can easily kill 1,000 other random men. The thin man makes a welcome return but doesn't actually do anything. He now is a complete joke. I mean, he was almost cool in the first and now we have a joker. This movie really shows that executives don't really care about this movie. I don't even think the stars cared either.
Then we get to the stunts and the overall dumbing down of the whole kung fu. In the first the kung fu was fresh and demanding. Now we can see the quick cutting between frames when the girls are fighting and the way the girls' arms are bending when they punch. Then we have Demi Moore as the Evil Charlies Angel.
Okay, she was good in a sort of pretty kind of way - but her "knowing of the Charlie's Angels' fighting style" was not really used as well it could have been. Instead Moore uses twin gold Desert Eagles (which she struggles to keep up) and cries about how Charlie didn't really love her and how she had ambition to become more than an angel. Okay, but why exactly does this make her the bad person? The end fight sequence is pretty lame too. Why is Diaz the only character to be able to fight Moore? I think the director should have watched the ending of Jackie Chan's "Project A" where three heroes face one super-bad guy, the director could have had a similar sequence, but instead ruins it with a homage to "Hollow Man"...
Despite all this, the movie and its potential - it is ruined a lot by the bad stunts ruined by badly rendered CGI. I still remember with affection movies like Blue Jean Cop and some of the earlier Jackie Chan movies where stunts meant action and action meant danger. So why has Hollywood forgotten about it? I don't know, all I know is that in this movie, we are proved once again that Hollywood has money to burn.
Overall this movie is rated a 1/10.
So what happened in the second movie? It seems the movie producers just drove a dumper truck filled with money and said they wanted to make a summer action movie without actually thinking about how the audience is actually meant to enjoy a movie that is more about personal ego than it is about the story, plot or stunts.
In this sequel, the girls are hired by the government to recover two small rings that hold the entire list of people on the witness protection scheme. I don't know about you but I felt it was odd that so much data could be stored into such small rings, not only that - they were so damn easy to steal too! Then we get to the whole subplots of Dillion's romance with an Irish thug and how she can't kill him but can easily kill 1,000 other random men. The thin man makes a welcome return but doesn't actually do anything. He now is a complete joke. I mean, he was almost cool in the first and now we have a joker. This movie really shows that executives don't really care about this movie. I don't even think the stars cared either.
Then we get to the stunts and the overall dumbing down of the whole kung fu. In the first the kung fu was fresh and demanding. Now we can see the quick cutting between frames when the girls are fighting and the way the girls' arms are bending when they punch. Then we have Demi Moore as the Evil Charlies Angel.
Okay, she was good in a sort of pretty kind of way - but her "knowing of the Charlie's Angels' fighting style" was not really used as well it could have been. Instead Moore uses twin gold Desert Eagles (which she struggles to keep up) and cries about how Charlie didn't really love her and how she had ambition to become more than an angel. Okay, but why exactly does this make her the bad person? The end fight sequence is pretty lame too. Why is Diaz the only character to be able to fight Moore? I think the director should have watched the ending of Jackie Chan's "Project A" where three heroes face one super-bad guy, the director could have had a similar sequence, but instead ruins it with a homage to "Hollow Man"...
Despite all this, the movie and its potential - it is ruined a lot by the bad stunts ruined by badly rendered CGI. I still remember with affection movies like Blue Jean Cop and some of the earlier Jackie Chan movies where stunts meant action and action meant danger. So why has Hollywood forgotten about it? I don't know, all I know is that in this movie, we are proved once again that Hollywood has money to burn.
Overall this movie is rated a 1/10.
This very poor, ultra-low budget car chase movie which is meant to be a knock-off of Speed stars Judge Reinhold in what he'd later to go to say was one of the worst films he ever starred in.
This TV movie has a lady who goes to get her car repaired by a dodgy mechanic and gets a car with the brake lines cut and the accelerator has now got a mind of its own and now travels over a 100mph (although its more like 30).
There are some good dramatic scenes, but they are all made laughable by the constant cutting to scenes of cops sweating or radio DJs sweating or other people sweating to yet another "near miss"...
Anyhow during the film the chasing radio and TV channels ask their viewers to come up with ideas on how to stop a runaway car...
The police can't think of one good idea of stopping the car.
There's tons of ideas they could have used. For example, they could have: 1) Popped the tyres 2) Jack the back of the car up with a pickup truck so it couldn't move 3) Use the water canisters they have on American freeway intersections and place them infront of the car - the water can slow down a car. 4) Put the car into reverse / Use the handbrake? 5) Drive the car into an airport and make it go around in circles until they run out of fuel...
But I think the pinnacle of how dumb this movie was, was when Mr Reinhold went on to query why they didn't just turn off the engine.
A pointless TV movie.
Rating: 2/10.
This TV movie has a lady who goes to get her car repaired by a dodgy mechanic and gets a car with the brake lines cut and the accelerator has now got a mind of its own and now travels over a 100mph (although its more like 30).
There are some good dramatic scenes, but they are all made laughable by the constant cutting to scenes of cops sweating or radio DJs sweating or other people sweating to yet another "near miss"...
Anyhow during the film the chasing radio and TV channels ask their viewers to come up with ideas on how to stop a runaway car...
The police can't think of one good idea of stopping the car.
There's tons of ideas they could have used. For example, they could have: 1) Popped the tyres 2) Jack the back of the car up with a pickup truck so it couldn't move 3) Use the water canisters they have on American freeway intersections and place them infront of the car - the water can slow down a car. 4) Put the car into reverse / Use the handbrake? 5) Drive the car into an airport and make it go around in circles until they run out of fuel...
But I think the pinnacle of how dumb this movie was, was when Mr Reinhold went on to query why they didn't just turn off the engine.
A pointless TV movie.
Rating: 2/10.
In this se7en-styled knock-off, Steven Seagal and Keenen Ivory Wayans are teamed up together to track down a typically vicious serial killer.
Along the way they encounter Russian Mafia who, we learn from this movie, all have tattoos on their forearms, but Seagal, can beat them quite easily. He also has a mysterious past and was called "The Glimmer Man"... ugh!
The mysterious past thing is just so lame in this movie. They call him "the Glimmer man" because you only see a glimmer before he kills you. This sub-plot point is actually irrelevant to the whole movie. Why can't he just be a cop who just happens to be very good at martial arts? Why isn't the serial killer called "the glimmer man"? It's actually quite annoying when you think about it.
There's also a sub-plot about the smuggling of chemical warfare from Russia - but where the heck is it? It never appears in the movie. The heroes don't even try to go to the docks to try and find the container shipment, or use SWAT to storm warehouses that belong to the Russian Mafia.
This movie is filled with sub-plots that are, to all ends and purposes, totally irrelevant to the movie.
The acting and chemistry between Seagal and Wayans feels forced - but I didn't mind because the action and story kept this movie moving.
One of the things I liked about this movie is that half way through Seagal himself is considered a suspect. I thought this actually be a sign of intelligent writing in the movie, and I was expecting a shock ending or twist with Wayans discovering he's been working with and helping the serial killer... It'd be far more intelligent than this drek of an action movie.
Anyway, by the end we're treated with a quite good action/martial art sequence with the lead henchman who dies quite grissly.
Overall, this movie has a crummy title and can't decide if it wants to be intelligent or just another brutal action movie. It chooses option 2.
Rating: 4/10
Along the way they encounter Russian Mafia who, we learn from this movie, all have tattoos on their forearms, but Seagal, can beat them quite easily. He also has a mysterious past and was called "The Glimmer Man"... ugh!
The mysterious past thing is just so lame in this movie. They call him "the Glimmer man" because you only see a glimmer before he kills you. This sub-plot point is actually irrelevant to the whole movie. Why can't he just be a cop who just happens to be very good at martial arts? Why isn't the serial killer called "the glimmer man"? It's actually quite annoying when you think about it.
There's also a sub-plot about the smuggling of chemical warfare from Russia - but where the heck is it? It never appears in the movie. The heroes don't even try to go to the docks to try and find the container shipment, or use SWAT to storm warehouses that belong to the Russian Mafia.
This movie is filled with sub-plots that are, to all ends and purposes, totally irrelevant to the movie.
The acting and chemistry between Seagal and Wayans feels forced - but I didn't mind because the action and story kept this movie moving.
One of the things I liked about this movie is that half way through Seagal himself is considered a suspect. I thought this actually be a sign of intelligent writing in the movie, and I was expecting a shock ending or twist with Wayans discovering he's been working with and helping the serial killer... It'd be far more intelligent than this drek of an action movie.
Anyway, by the end we're treated with a quite good action/martial art sequence with the lead henchman who dies quite grissly.
Overall, this movie has a crummy title and can't decide if it wants to be intelligent or just another brutal action movie. It chooses option 2.
Rating: 4/10
I recently caught this movie on satellite, curious to know if this movie was as bad as everyone says it is.
I personally didn't think it was THAT bad, but it is bad. It's good fun to watch, but it does hurt if your a fan and your seeing a screen action legend being "McDonaldised" on screen.
This is because it is a Jackie Chan movie - therefore you expect quite a lot. Instead, we get a cardboard cut out job of other Hollywood produced action films.
Firstly you can tell that this has been a cut-and-paste job from all of the other Jackie Chan fish-out-of-water Hollywood movies, therefore the film just feels pointless, whimsical and boring.
Secondly, like all other Hollywood produced Jackie Chan films, the action direction was poor and lacking. The fighting and action sequences suffered either from poor cutting, or poor zooming.
Future action directors who want to make a Jackie Chan movie should learn from Chan's previous films if they want to make a good action movie.
Thirdly, the characters surrounding Chan don't actually DO anything, especially the annoying character played by Jennifer Love Hewitt. Why does Hewitt's character, a scientist who specalises in water, an expert in kung fu?
I think the wires and CGI made Jackie Chan look out of place, and it also makes you feel whimsical about any scenes that show threats or danger. It takes the edge off the movie.
In yet another fish-out-of-water plot, Chan plays New York Cabbie who is hired to drive around British spy and all-round charmer Jason Issacs, who for some reason has a $2-billion suit in his house.
After an assassination attempt, Jackie is forced to wear the Suit and become Inspector Gadget - no wait, I mean James Tong, super spy.
Anyway, after some more pointless scenes of hilarity and mischief, the suit is given to the bad guy, the CEO of a major Water company, and he becomes all powerful. But wait, James Tong finds another, £2-billion suit (where did this come from?)
The end sequence does boast some good fight sequences between the CEO and Jackie but suffers from very poor editing and camera direction.
This film fails because it is just another cut-and-paste-job, a vechile for Jackie to "show off" his skills. This idea just patronises the movie viewer and the many fans.
It's clear, to me at least, that this film marks the end of the Jackie Chan action movie genre, because nearly every film after this one has been the same.
Someone once said that Jackie has just become another Vegas showcase, doing "party tricks". I had to think long and hard about that statement. After seeing this film, I can agree. Jackie is much more than just a "fish-out-of-water".
This film marks the end of the real Jackie Chan, and the beginning of the Hollywood Jackie Chan.
Rating: 4/10 (mainly for effort)
I personally didn't think it was THAT bad, but it is bad. It's good fun to watch, but it does hurt if your a fan and your seeing a screen action legend being "McDonaldised" on screen.
This is because it is a Jackie Chan movie - therefore you expect quite a lot. Instead, we get a cardboard cut out job of other Hollywood produced action films.
Firstly you can tell that this has been a cut-and-paste job from all of the other Jackie Chan fish-out-of-water Hollywood movies, therefore the film just feels pointless, whimsical and boring.
Secondly, like all other Hollywood produced Jackie Chan films, the action direction was poor and lacking. The fighting and action sequences suffered either from poor cutting, or poor zooming.
Future action directors who want to make a Jackie Chan movie should learn from Chan's previous films if they want to make a good action movie.
Thirdly, the characters surrounding Chan don't actually DO anything, especially the annoying character played by Jennifer Love Hewitt. Why does Hewitt's character, a scientist who specalises in water, an expert in kung fu?
I think the wires and CGI made Jackie Chan look out of place, and it also makes you feel whimsical about any scenes that show threats or danger. It takes the edge off the movie.
In yet another fish-out-of-water plot, Chan plays New York Cabbie who is hired to drive around British spy and all-round charmer Jason Issacs, who for some reason has a $2-billion suit in his house.
After an assassination attempt, Jackie is forced to wear the Suit and become Inspector Gadget - no wait, I mean James Tong, super spy.
Anyway, after some more pointless scenes of hilarity and mischief, the suit is given to the bad guy, the CEO of a major Water company, and he becomes all powerful. But wait, James Tong finds another, £2-billion suit (where did this come from?)
The end sequence does boast some good fight sequences between the CEO and Jackie but suffers from very poor editing and camera direction.
This film fails because it is just another cut-and-paste-job, a vechile for Jackie to "show off" his skills. This idea just patronises the movie viewer and the many fans.
It's clear, to me at least, that this film marks the end of the Jackie Chan action movie genre, because nearly every film after this one has been the same.
Someone once said that Jackie has just become another Vegas showcase, doing "party tricks". I had to think long and hard about that statement. After seeing this film, I can agree. Jackie is much more than just a "fish-out-of-water".
This film marks the end of the real Jackie Chan, and the beginning of the Hollywood Jackie Chan.
Rating: 4/10 (mainly for effort)
Ben Affleck plays Matt Murdock, a "blind" lawyer who wants to take on criminal mastermind The Kingpin played by Michael Clarke Duncan.
Duncan hams up his role with delight as he staggers around in his really nice suit, the way he delivers his lines and his whole body language remind me of James Bond villians of old.
Whilst there isn't really any plot to this movie, there is a theme - it is justice and revenge, it deals with them quite well.
Unfortuently it suffers from too many "dark monologues" that don't really have any impact. This is mainly because Affleck cannot deliver it well enough. I just didn't believe he was actually blind. I think this would have benefited from having an un-known blind actor in there and doing a whole Christopher Reeve thing. But that's me.
Anyway, the movie suffers from lots and lots of CGI, bad stunts that make you think "hang on a second, this daredevil does not have ANY super-powers except enhanced senses, so how can he do..." but, this train of thought is thankfully interrupted by Colin Farrell - who seems quite insane.
Anyhow this movie is above average, and suffers from too many things that just didn't make this film click. Sometimes it was boring, other times it relied too heavily on 'wire-fu' or cgi-enhanced stunts.
If you've ever needed proof that cgi is ruining action sequences, this is the film to watch.
It's good film to pass time, but I don't think I came away from this movie actually learning anything or thinking differently. I think this film should have at least tried to make people think differently, otherwise it'll might as well be another money-making hero movie.
Overall, I rate this movie: 4/10.
Duncan hams up his role with delight as he staggers around in his really nice suit, the way he delivers his lines and his whole body language remind me of James Bond villians of old.
Whilst there isn't really any plot to this movie, there is a theme - it is justice and revenge, it deals with them quite well.
Unfortuently it suffers from too many "dark monologues" that don't really have any impact. This is mainly because Affleck cannot deliver it well enough. I just didn't believe he was actually blind. I think this would have benefited from having an un-known blind actor in there and doing a whole Christopher Reeve thing. But that's me.
Anyway, the movie suffers from lots and lots of CGI, bad stunts that make you think "hang on a second, this daredevil does not have ANY super-powers except enhanced senses, so how can he do..." but, this train of thought is thankfully interrupted by Colin Farrell - who seems quite insane.
Anyhow this movie is above average, and suffers from too many things that just didn't make this film click. Sometimes it was boring, other times it relied too heavily on 'wire-fu' or cgi-enhanced stunts.
If you've ever needed proof that cgi is ruining action sequences, this is the film to watch.
It's good film to pass time, but I don't think I came away from this movie actually learning anything or thinking differently. I think this film should have at least tried to make people think differently, otherwise it'll might as well be another money-making hero movie.
Overall, I rate this movie: 4/10.
Are you a loser who wants to be the next action movie star? Do you have the talent to stand in front of cardboard boxes, do 'some' act, and jump out of the way of CGI explosions? Then - we have a 'wee-iner'.
This reality TV show puts a bunch of nobody, wannabe's into a TV show that promises to make them the next action star. You get to perform stunts, act/cheesily ridiciousily at the judges and if you win you get to be directed by action supermeo Joel Silver.
What could possibly go wrong?
Well, nearly everything. The judges are way too much like the ones in American Idol. The bits they show on the 'casting call' are the most hilarious and borders upon being silly and full of parody potental.
I haven't watched all the episodes of this reality TV show, but it is like car crash TV in that you can't help but watch but you know you shouldn't.
This reality TV show puts a bunch of nobody, wannabe's into a TV show that promises to make them the next action star. You get to perform stunts, act/cheesily ridiciousily at the judges and if you win you get to be directed by action supermeo Joel Silver.
What could possibly go wrong?
Well, nearly everything. The judges are way too much like the ones in American Idol. The bits they show on the 'casting call' are the most hilarious and borders upon being silly and full of parody potental.
I haven't watched all the episodes of this reality TV show, but it is like car crash TV in that you can't help but watch but you know you shouldn't.
Time travel. Man's greatest wish seems to be to go back and change the past.
Is time a straight-line, or a circle? Is it relative? Does changing the past create different, parallel universes?
For this TV movie, I took the view that most movies gave which is to assume time is a straight line. Unfortuently it makes the movie a lot more confusing and hard to follow.
This TV movie is much like the 'The Butterfly Effect'. Our hero wants to go back into time and stop the war in vietnam so that his brother can live. To this end, he believes stopping the JFK assassination will stop the vietnam war ever being conducted (as well as concluding the cold war 30 years early!).
But as ever, if you change the past something will happen to make things worse for the future. For some reason, Lyndon Johnson decides to nuke Vietnam as well as send in more troops. Heck, why don't you just use the fabled 'neutron bomb' whilst your at it.
Anyhow, everything cocks up and the time-travellers are left wondering if they can ever change the past. Our hero goes to a local hospital where he finds his younger brother and tells him to stay out of Vietnam.
But if he went in the past to prevent his brother going to vietnam, this means the hero would have no recollection of his brother ever going and dying in vietnam - thus he would have no reason to go back in time.
This is one of many time-paraodoxes that can hurt your head if you try to think about it.
What happens at the end? Well, lets just say time, it appears, has a concious.
Overall: 5/10.
Is time a straight-line, or a circle? Is it relative? Does changing the past create different, parallel universes?
For this TV movie, I took the view that most movies gave which is to assume time is a straight line. Unfortuently it makes the movie a lot more confusing and hard to follow.
This TV movie is much like the 'The Butterfly Effect'. Our hero wants to go back into time and stop the war in vietnam so that his brother can live. To this end, he believes stopping the JFK assassination will stop the vietnam war ever being conducted (as well as concluding the cold war 30 years early!).
But as ever, if you change the past something will happen to make things worse for the future. For some reason, Lyndon Johnson decides to nuke Vietnam as well as send in more troops. Heck, why don't you just use the fabled 'neutron bomb' whilst your at it.
Anyhow, everything cocks up and the time-travellers are left wondering if they can ever change the past. Our hero goes to a local hospital where he finds his younger brother and tells him to stay out of Vietnam.
But if he went in the past to prevent his brother going to vietnam, this means the hero would have no recollection of his brother ever going and dying in vietnam - thus he would have no reason to go back in time.
This is one of many time-paraodoxes that can hurt your head if you try to think about it.
What happens at the end? Well, lets just say time, it appears, has a concious.
Overall: 5/10.
I think this was a very good, well paced conspiracy film about a hoax trip to Mars after some technical issue that would cost NASA's future in space.
Elliot Gould stars as a frankly uninspiring reporter who is looking for the biggest scoop of the century, sometimes I just didn't like his character at all - but I did like how he slowly figured things out without people telling him what the conspiracy was.
Secondly, I liked the three astronaut characters, despite them all being (with the exception of James Brolin's character) under-developed and left unexplored.
The ending is the best part of this film and has some of the best helicopter and aeroplane stunts I've ever seen on film, especally when James Brolin is hanging on the wing of a plane as it nose-dives down a canyon - being chased by black helicopters.
Overall: 6.5/10
Elliot Gould stars as a frankly uninspiring reporter who is looking for the biggest scoop of the century, sometimes I just didn't like his character at all - but I did like how he slowly figured things out without people telling him what the conspiracy was.
Secondly, I liked the three astronaut characters, despite them all being (with the exception of James Brolin's character) under-developed and left unexplored.
The ending is the best part of this film and has some of the best helicopter and aeroplane stunts I've ever seen on film, especally when James Brolin is hanging on the wing of a plane as it nose-dives down a canyon - being chased by black helicopters.
Overall: 6.5/10
Jean Claude Van Damme plays twin brothers seperated at birth who are rejoined to take down a criminal gang who was responsible for the murder of their collective parents.
Van Damme stars in this cheesy film probably on the understanding that it would change the nature of film-making, I mean there haven't been that many action movies where the star has played both leading characters. Unfortuently, this also has lead to claims that Van Damme's ego overinflated. Watching this film, I can see why.
The film is clearly stuck in the 80s. Van Damme fights more without his shirt and more of his trademark Rage(TM) than perhaps any of his earlier action films.
The rest of the film is pretty okay, its still cheesy - and some sequences are very good - but the part the film built up to was a confrontation between Bolo Yeung (the guy with the glass eye) and Van Damme.
This fight started off very, very well - then went down hill very, very fast - how many spin-kicks to the face does Van Damme have to perform to get Yeung into the well-placed electrical cables?
Personally, I would have had both Van Damme twins duking it out with Bolo Yeung at the same time - sure it would have been a directorial nightmare - but if you pulled it off, it'd be the best sequence of the entire movie.
Overall, this is a cheesy, laid-back action movie.
Rating: 4/10
Van Damme stars in this cheesy film probably on the understanding that it would change the nature of film-making, I mean there haven't been that many action movies where the star has played both leading characters. Unfortuently, this also has lead to claims that Van Damme's ego overinflated. Watching this film, I can see why.
The film is clearly stuck in the 80s. Van Damme fights more without his shirt and more of his trademark Rage(TM) than perhaps any of his earlier action films.
The rest of the film is pretty okay, its still cheesy - and some sequences are very good - but the part the film built up to was a confrontation between Bolo Yeung (the guy with the glass eye) and Van Damme.
This fight started off very, very well - then went down hill very, very fast - how many spin-kicks to the face does Van Damme have to perform to get Yeung into the well-placed electrical cables?
Personally, I would have had both Van Damme twins duking it out with Bolo Yeung at the same time - sure it would have been a directorial nightmare - but if you pulled it off, it'd be the best sequence of the entire movie.
Overall, this is a cheesy, laid-back action movie.
Rating: 4/10
When I first heard action superemo Corey Yeun was going to work with British actor Jason Statham to make a film called 'The Transporter', my mind started to think 'oh no - yeun has decided to ruin his career'.
However as soon as I saw this movie, I was actually quite surprised to see Mr Statham pulling off some very impressive martial art moves however I think it was ruined by constant quick-cutting and MTV-style editing, which reminded me of the overly-cut fight sequences in Rush Hour.
The film, which I'm sure will spawn a b-movie version called 'The Courier' and will probably star Steven Seagal or Dolph Lundgren, has Mr Statham a very good Courier with a pretty name, ie: the Transporter.
He delivers goods and has very strict rules. But one day he decides to break his own rules when he discovers he smuggling a pretty Chinese girl around France.
The film has lots of good, excellent action sequences - which include impressive fight sequences - but you should never judge a movie based upon its first 10, 20 minutes of action. This movie slows down, a heck of a lot - to explain its plot.
The pretty Chinese girl's dad (whom I'm sure was wearing a lot of make-up) is in cahoots with an evil criminal with a goatee (you knew he was evil because his passport picture) to smuggle lots of Chinese immigrants across France. Why? Err, I'm not sure.
The film suffers from horrible dialogue, fast-cutting and sequences where I felt Jason Statham's character was never in any danger.
Overall this is an average action movie that could, should have been a lot better.
Rating: 4.5/10
However as soon as I saw this movie, I was actually quite surprised to see Mr Statham pulling off some very impressive martial art moves however I think it was ruined by constant quick-cutting and MTV-style editing, which reminded me of the overly-cut fight sequences in Rush Hour.
The film, which I'm sure will spawn a b-movie version called 'The Courier' and will probably star Steven Seagal or Dolph Lundgren, has Mr Statham a very good Courier with a pretty name, ie: the Transporter.
He delivers goods and has very strict rules. But one day he decides to break his own rules when he discovers he smuggling a pretty Chinese girl around France.
The film has lots of good, excellent action sequences - which include impressive fight sequences - but you should never judge a movie based upon its first 10, 20 minutes of action. This movie slows down, a heck of a lot - to explain its plot.
The pretty Chinese girl's dad (whom I'm sure was wearing a lot of make-up) is in cahoots with an evil criminal with a goatee (you knew he was evil because his passport picture) to smuggle lots of Chinese immigrants across France. Why? Err, I'm not sure.
The film suffers from horrible dialogue, fast-cutting and sequences where I felt Jason Statham's character was never in any danger.
Overall this is an average action movie that could, should have been a lot better.
Rating: 4.5/10
Cybill Shepherd plays in this very easy to watch movie which charts the rise and fall of Martha Stewart.
Whilst I don't know Martha Stewart or what she represents to today's American Society, I do know that I enjoyed this movie and I often take time out from my busy schedule to watch it.
Sure its not the best movie in the world, but I watch it because it's sometimes funny and sometimes realistic about the world of business. And I think its a good movie if you want to know what it takes to become an entreprenuer or start your own business.
Sometimes it re-invigorates my own ideals and my own personal goals. So that's why I like this movie.
Overall: 6/10.
Whilst I don't know Martha Stewart or what she represents to today's American Society, I do know that I enjoyed this movie and I often take time out from my busy schedule to watch it.
Sure its not the best movie in the world, but I watch it because it's sometimes funny and sometimes realistic about the world of business. And I think its a good movie if you want to know what it takes to become an entreprenuer or start your own business.
Sometimes it re-invigorates my own ideals and my own personal goals. So that's why I like this movie.
Overall: 6/10.
I'm not sure what to make of Matrix Revolutions. Sure I agree with the people that it isn't as intelligent, thoughtful or as laid out as the original, sure it lacks the venom or fear in the fight sequences - and somehow the CGI doesn't seem to add to the film anymore.
So what's it missing? I personally think its lacking a real threat, we already know Neo is the one and can bend the rules of the matrix world - so we don't fear his downfall because we know he'll eventually rise up.
Take for example when Neo, in the first Matrix film, walks onto a ledge on a high-rise building - the shot of him looking down and you see the drop was intelligent - but the other films seemed to be more lazy in their manner - going for the quick buck rather the hard sell.
Everyone agrees that the first Matrix film was very good - I didn't at the time - I called a mess, but it has grown on me - it has taken an old philosophical puzzle and turned it on its head.
The second film went deeper into the puzzle but ruined itself with constant long scenes that didn't seem to go anywhere and it made mistakes by allowing everyone in the 'real world' to do all the special skills that Neo had - which diminished the threat of the Agents.
This film throws away almost all references to the second film and slaps back straight into the action.
There's plenty of action revolving the invasion of Zion and most of it is enjoyable, but there are questions revolving the use of EMP and their lack of basic military tactics.
Aside from the attack on Zion, the movie revolves around the constant themes of religion - one actor speaks of the role of karma as being he's soul's duty to perform - however this is a mistake - what he was really referring to was Dharama.
Anyway - this theme is rallied home when Neo decides to take on Smith in the final reels of the film and sacrifices himself to save all humans and give peace in the ongoing war against man and machine.
I didn't like the fight between Neo and Smith - I was expecting an extremly hard, fast almost hyperkenetic fight that would rival the very best kung fu movies from Hong Kong - instead we get a fly-by-wire fight that rivals Superman II.
Finally I was puzzled by Neo's final realisation of the 'truth' - he must cause mass genocide (ie: kill everyone in the matrix) to save everybody in the real world. Was this really "adventures of anti virus", or something more?
I feel that this movie involved me in the fight in Zion, but not in the fight against Smith - it didn't involve or excite me with its characters (Neo was just plain boring and Trinity didn't really do anything). Which is a shame, considering the 'pedigree' of its original.
Overall: 5/10.
So what's it missing? I personally think its lacking a real threat, we already know Neo is the one and can bend the rules of the matrix world - so we don't fear his downfall because we know he'll eventually rise up.
Take for example when Neo, in the first Matrix film, walks onto a ledge on a high-rise building - the shot of him looking down and you see the drop was intelligent - but the other films seemed to be more lazy in their manner - going for the quick buck rather the hard sell.
Everyone agrees that the first Matrix film was very good - I didn't at the time - I called a mess, but it has grown on me - it has taken an old philosophical puzzle and turned it on its head.
The second film went deeper into the puzzle but ruined itself with constant long scenes that didn't seem to go anywhere and it made mistakes by allowing everyone in the 'real world' to do all the special skills that Neo had - which diminished the threat of the Agents.
This film throws away almost all references to the second film and slaps back straight into the action.
There's plenty of action revolving the invasion of Zion and most of it is enjoyable, but there are questions revolving the use of EMP and their lack of basic military tactics.
Aside from the attack on Zion, the movie revolves around the constant themes of religion - one actor speaks of the role of karma as being he's soul's duty to perform - however this is a mistake - what he was really referring to was Dharama.
Anyway - this theme is rallied home when Neo decides to take on Smith in the final reels of the film and sacrifices himself to save all humans and give peace in the ongoing war against man and machine.
I didn't like the fight between Neo and Smith - I was expecting an extremly hard, fast almost hyperkenetic fight that would rival the very best kung fu movies from Hong Kong - instead we get a fly-by-wire fight that rivals Superman II.
Finally I was puzzled by Neo's final realisation of the 'truth' - he must cause mass genocide (ie: kill everyone in the matrix) to save everybody in the real world. Was this really "adventures of anti virus", or something more?
I feel that this movie involved me in the fight in Zion, but not in the fight against Smith - it didn't involve or excite me with its characters (Neo was just plain boring and Trinity didn't really do anything). Which is a shame, considering the 'pedigree' of its original.
Overall: 5/10.
A preacher on Television once exclaimed how bad society had become - I often wondered what he meant. Surely he wasn't saying that all society was evil? Apparantly, according to this movie - it was and still is.
If all men are created in sin why does man give charity or find love in the simplest of things. Indeed it seems this movie tells us without the teachings of the Bible we are no more human than we are criminals.
I don't usually bother with relgious zealot movies - they are distasteful as they are preachy. A movie such as Star Wars and the Matrix use relgious themes but give the audience time to make up their mind on how their own morale beliefs are linked to religion - this movie doesn't do either.
In the movie a Christian fundamentalist from the 1890's travels to the future and gets p***ed off at how the future earth is "evil" and how "sin rules the world". And a lady tells him that its all down to the movies. I almost burst out laughing. No one event changed man but a number of reasons such as WW1 and WW2 - and perhaps less so the swinging sixties.
This movie tries to reaffirm Christian followers into the teachings of the Bible but falls short on how far we should follow the Bible. Are we meant to follow every line - including that one about stoning people for putting their crops side by side? And who decides what rules we should or should not follow? This movie? A guy from the 1890's?
I don't mind religous movies per sa, but not when they try to preach at me from some moral pedistal that they themselves cannot claim to be on.
It is better than Omega Code. But is ruining by its constant preachy-ness.
Overall: 1/10.
If all men are created in sin why does man give charity or find love in the simplest of things. Indeed it seems this movie tells us without the teachings of the Bible we are no more human than we are criminals.
I don't usually bother with relgious zealot movies - they are distasteful as they are preachy. A movie such as Star Wars and the Matrix use relgious themes but give the audience time to make up their mind on how their own morale beliefs are linked to religion - this movie doesn't do either.
In the movie a Christian fundamentalist from the 1890's travels to the future and gets p***ed off at how the future earth is "evil" and how "sin rules the world". And a lady tells him that its all down to the movies. I almost burst out laughing. No one event changed man but a number of reasons such as WW1 and WW2 - and perhaps less so the swinging sixties.
This movie tries to reaffirm Christian followers into the teachings of the Bible but falls short on how far we should follow the Bible. Are we meant to follow every line - including that one about stoning people for putting their crops side by side? And who decides what rules we should or should not follow? This movie? A guy from the 1890's?
I don't mind religous movies per sa, but not when they try to preach at me from some moral pedistal that they themselves cannot claim to be on.
It is better than Omega Code. But is ruining by its constant preachy-ness.
Overall: 1/10.
Mention Jean Claude Van Damme to any action movie aficionado and you'll see their eyes beam remembering films such as Bloodsport, Kickboxer, TimeCop and perhaps even Hard Target.
So what happened to JCVD? Well his style of violent action movies has been dead in the water for many years and plus his films, although interesting, always end up being another 80s styled movie - lots of cheese, OTT action and stupid story lines.
VD has been relegated to Direct-to-Video, and having seen the mess that is "The Order" - I have to wonder what happened to VD and his movie career.
Its refereshing to see an action movie set in the middle east, but did they have to resort to so may sterotypes, cliches and just pointless chases. For example, the cleavage busting police lady joins up with VD to save the world and ain't no jihad gonna stop him from his die hard in the middle east mission....except that this isn't die hard. Those times are long gone.
Charlton Heston makes a brief cameo - and ironically gets shot in the stomach - well I thought it was ironic considering his stance on guns.
Also in there is the worst bad guy I've ever seen - Brian Thompson, his sneering smile reminded me of Gustav Graves in Die another Day - yet Thompson gives no real venom or character to VD's enemy - he's just a heavy who got lucky and now wants to start WW3.
Meanwhile JCVD takes on the entire Isralei police force in karate fights - at last, I thought, a chance to see how JCVD would fare against the hand-to-hand combat skills of the Isralei police/army force - but it turns out its more of a flashy leg kicking match - another opportunity missed.
If I could resolve this story line in one sentence its this: A die hard in the middle east meets Indiana Jones. Its unfortuente that VD could not achieve either the gusto of die hard nor the charm of indiana jones and its just a mess.
Overall: 1/10.
So what happened to JCVD? Well his style of violent action movies has been dead in the water for many years and plus his films, although interesting, always end up being another 80s styled movie - lots of cheese, OTT action and stupid story lines.
VD has been relegated to Direct-to-Video, and having seen the mess that is "The Order" - I have to wonder what happened to VD and his movie career.
Its refereshing to see an action movie set in the middle east, but did they have to resort to so may sterotypes, cliches and just pointless chases. For example, the cleavage busting police lady joins up with VD to save the world and ain't no jihad gonna stop him from his die hard in the middle east mission....except that this isn't die hard. Those times are long gone.
Charlton Heston makes a brief cameo - and ironically gets shot in the stomach - well I thought it was ironic considering his stance on guns.
Also in there is the worst bad guy I've ever seen - Brian Thompson, his sneering smile reminded me of Gustav Graves in Die another Day - yet Thompson gives no real venom or character to VD's enemy - he's just a heavy who got lucky and now wants to start WW3.
Meanwhile JCVD takes on the entire Isralei police force in karate fights - at last, I thought, a chance to see how JCVD would fare against the hand-to-hand combat skills of the Isralei police/army force - but it turns out its more of a flashy leg kicking match - another opportunity missed.
If I could resolve this story line in one sentence its this: A die hard in the middle east meets Indiana Jones. Its unfortuente that VD could not achieve either the gusto of die hard nor the charm of indiana jones and its just a mess.
Overall: 1/10.