3 reviews
Just returned from the movie theater with a very mixed range of emotions and feelings about this movie.
First - the good parts... Very entertaining action flick with nice fight-sequences and special effects, just like one would expect from action-expert Ridley Scott.
Pretty decent actors and actresses, especially in the leading roles. Very nice visual effects - which we have become accustomed to from the last decade's epic action movies. And this just proofs that you can get very good VFX from other companies that WETA or ILM... No bad thoughts about them, but it is nice to see another (newcoming?) VFX house take an approach at such things.
And it is also refreshing to see Jeremy Irons not playing a bad guy for once...
Then - the not so good parts... If you have seen Ridley Scott's Gladiator, you've almost seen this movie too. A man takes on a crusade from his "hometown" to a scenery unfamiliar to him. He gets some close friends who helps him in the end...
The cinematography in the fight sequences is pretty much the same in these two movies: Very fast, up-close and hand-held camera movements. So is also the use of blood-spattering - much off-camera slicing-and-dicing, but "sprayed out" enough for the viewer to get a little "grossed-out" feeling. Anyone remember a fight-sequence taking place in a small stone-grove in "Conan the Barbarian" from 1982? I thing this was the first movie to use this technique.
To recap the last few lines: Pretty entertaining movie that has its moments. 7 out of 10 for the lack of originality compared to Gladiator.
First - the good parts... Very entertaining action flick with nice fight-sequences and special effects, just like one would expect from action-expert Ridley Scott.
Pretty decent actors and actresses, especially in the leading roles. Very nice visual effects - which we have become accustomed to from the last decade's epic action movies. And this just proofs that you can get very good VFX from other companies that WETA or ILM... No bad thoughts about them, but it is nice to see another (newcoming?) VFX house take an approach at such things.
And it is also refreshing to see Jeremy Irons not playing a bad guy for once...
Then - the not so good parts... If you have seen Ridley Scott's Gladiator, you've almost seen this movie too. A man takes on a crusade from his "hometown" to a scenery unfamiliar to him. He gets some close friends who helps him in the end...
The cinematography in the fight sequences is pretty much the same in these two movies: Very fast, up-close and hand-held camera movements. So is also the use of blood-spattering - much off-camera slicing-and-dicing, but "sprayed out" enough for the viewer to get a little "grossed-out" feeling. Anyone remember a fight-sequence taking place in a small stone-grove in "Conan the Barbarian" from 1982? I thing this was the first movie to use this technique.
To recap the last few lines: Pretty entertaining movie that has its moments. 7 out of 10 for the lack of originality compared to Gladiator.
Well, I was quite surprised about Corfixen's bad acting, she has a very monotone voice and acting skills, and I thought she would have made it better. The only highlight of the actors was Soren Pilmark, who is as good as always, and Brygmann who was also quite good.
Quite interesting story and okay chock effects.
But the kinda-gross end was the best part of the entire movie - the rest was pretty dull.
If you like a spooky story about demons with some quite bad acting from the lead roles, but wants some nice horror effects, go see this movie. Otherwise, do not...
Quite interesting story and okay chock effects.
But the kinda-gross end was the best part of the entire movie - the rest was pretty dull.
If you like a spooky story about demons with some quite bad acting from the lead roles, but wants some nice horror effects, go see this movie. Otherwise, do not...