kuner-59029
Joined Apr 2015
Welcome to the new profile
Our updates are still in development. While the previous version of the profile is no longer accessible, we're actively working on improvements, and some of the missing features will be returning soon! Stay tuned for their return. In the meantime, the Ratings Analysis is still available on our iOS and Android apps, found on the profile page. To view your Rating Distribution(s) by Year and Genre, please refer to our new Help guide.
Badges2
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Ratings571
kuner-59029's rating
Reviews180
kuner-59029's rating
I loved the Conan novels as a kid and Conan The Barbarian is one of my all time favorite movies.
Unfortunately both the Conan Sequel, the 1980s Red Sonja movie and the Conan Remake were all complete disasters, all but burying the brand.
Imagine my surprise when without much fanfare or announcement, Red Sonja 2025 was announced in cinemas.
I feared the worst. The trailer showed a low budget shot in Bulgaria production, terrible CGI, costumes so bad they belong in a Xena episode.... .. and yet I thoroughly enjoyed it.
It's by no means a perfect film. Far from it. But it's completely bonkers and I've rarely ever seen a movie who's reach so far exceeds its grasp. This film tries really really hard to be an Epic.
Matilda Lutz doesn't have the right physique for the role, lacking about 25-30 pounds of muscle for this kind of skimpy armor to look right like in the comics. Red Sonja is a role for a bodybuilder or fighter. But I have to say, she gives the role her all. She's acting her heart out, as if she was under the impression that they were filming a Gladiator like epic. Heck, her performance absolutely shames Paul Mescal in Gladiator 2.
Wallis Day as the female antagonist gives another memorable and fantastic performance. Whenever both are on screen together, the movie just jumps to life.
There are scenes that drag. Sonja's band of allies are mostly bland.
The main villain annoyed me for most of the movie. Until the ending, when the actor gives absolutely everything in a scene that was an oddly touching ending to an otherwise off the rocket insane B-movie goodness. I'm not sure he was right as the main villain. He lacked the charisma for an emperor. But as a vulnerable man... wow.
I actually felt something. When was the last time a movie did that to you? Mainstream movies are so sterile and emotionless these days, but Red Sonja throws a metal bikini clad redhead at you, charging forward into battle like it's the 80s all over again. And when it's all over, blood soaked hero and villain reconcile like it's Hokuto No Ken or some other heroic tears Manga.
I love it.
The negative reviews... I get why some people didn't like it. Production values are low, Lutz didn't look the part, the villain was goofy for most of the film. It's not Conan the Barbarian. But if you watch it without expecting a glossy Hollywood production, you can have some real fun with this. Red Sonja is a B-movie with all its highs and lows, tonal inconsistency and unexpectedly memorable scenes.
We don't get films like this often anymore. Here's hoping for a sequel. Bravo!
Unfortunately both the Conan Sequel, the 1980s Red Sonja movie and the Conan Remake were all complete disasters, all but burying the brand.
Imagine my surprise when without much fanfare or announcement, Red Sonja 2025 was announced in cinemas.
I feared the worst. The trailer showed a low budget shot in Bulgaria production, terrible CGI, costumes so bad they belong in a Xena episode.... .. and yet I thoroughly enjoyed it.
It's by no means a perfect film. Far from it. But it's completely bonkers and I've rarely ever seen a movie who's reach so far exceeds its grasp. This film tries really really hard to be an Epic.
Matilda Lutz doesn't have the right physique for the role, lacking about 25-30 pounds of muscle for this kind of skimpy armor to look right like in the comics. Red Sonja is a role for a bodybuilder or fighter. But I have to say, she gives the role her all. She's acting her heart out, as if she was under the impression that they were filming a Gladiator like epic. Heck, her performance absolutely shames Paul Mescal in Gladiator 2.
Wallis Day as the female antagonist gives another memorable and fantastic performance. Whenever both are on screen together, the movie just jumps to life.
There are scenes that drag. Sonja's band of allies are mostly bland.
The main villain annoyed me for most of the movie. Until the ending, when the actor gives absolutely everything in a scene that was an oddly touching ending to an otherwise off the rocket insane B-movie goodness. I'm not sure he was right as the main villain. He lacked the charisma for an emperor. But as a vulnerable man... wow.
I actually felt something. When was the last time a movie did that to you? Mainstream movies are so sterile and emotionless these days, but Red Sonja throws a metal bikini clad redhead at you, charging forward into battle like it's the 80s all over again. And when it's all over, blood soaked hero and villain reconcile like it's Hokuto No Ken or some other heroic tears Manga.
I love it.
The negative reviews... I get why some people didn't like it. Production values are low, Lutz didn't look the part, the villain was goofy for most of the film. It's not Conan the Barbarian. But if you watch it without expecting a glossy Hollywood production, you can have some real fun with this. Red Sonja is a B-movie with all its highs and lows, tonal inconsistency and unexpectedly memorable scenes.
We don't get films like this often anymore. Here's hoping for a sequel. Bravo!
The original Gladiator is one of the all time great historic epic films. A timeless revenge story, it borrowed from all time greats like Ben Hur and Spartacus and brought Rome to life with never before seen visuals, masterful direction and an incredible soundtrack by maestro Hans Zimmer and Lisa Gerrard, who's voice left entire crowds with tears in their eyes long after they exited the movie theater. Russel Crowe gave one of cinema's all time most memorable lead performances as the titular hero, and opposed to him, Joaquim Phoenix gave an equally stunning performance as the evil emperor Commodus, layered with vulnerability, vengefulness and a desire to be loved.
For over 20 years a sequel was rumored to be in the works. Ridley Scott is close to 90, Russel Crowe's star has since faded, but still we all hoped it would be good. And then the trailer hit. The hip hop score of the trailer and the awful CGI shots of the flooded Colosseum made it look like a Netflix style garbage film.
Luckily, the actual movie isn't nearly as bad as the trailer and some reviews will make you believe. It's actually quite entertaining, briskly passing its 2 1/2 hour runtime. But despite copying the original's story structure almost beat for beat, despite grandiose visuals, costume design and a scene chewing performance by Denzel Washington, the film somehow *feels* worse than it is.
Why? The two most obvious reasons are easily identified. Paul Mescal isn't anywhere near Russel Crowe in terms of gravitas or acting ability. He was a terrible choice to lead this film, passing most of the film with an empty stare. Ridley Scott must have noticed this, too, because much of the movie (the interesting parts) happens around him, sometimes with him not being on screen for several minutes while Denzel Washington intrigues his was up through Roman society. Denzel absolutely steals the show here, stealing the scenery, laughing, having fun, but also always observing, scanning people for weakness and executing his machiavellian plans with ruthless efficiency. He's the best thing about the movie. I particularly like the scene where he speaks with Mescal in his cell towards the end. When Mescal asks about his past, trying to fraternize with him, he just smiles and says "You'll never know" and leaves. No grandiose speech, no attempt to lure him to his side. Washington just discards him. How refreshingly different from the usual Hollywood villain who always gloatingly dump exposition onto the hero.
Equally if not more important is the score. Hans Zimmer's score of the original is one of the best scores in film history. The sequel's score is generic action film slop. Whenever the original themes briefly reappear, it instantly reminds you of a film that made you feel something... while this one makes you feel nothing.
But it doesn't just end there. The more attention you pay to the little things, the more you realize how rushed and careless this film feels. Several of the action scenes, in particular the opening battle feel poorly choreographed and even more poorly edited. Lighting is at times uneven, with scenes clearly shot from multiple angles and not always optimally lit. Some scenes look fantastic, others look flat. I read that the DP was upset with Ridley Scott for rushing production - and it shows.
The editing of the opening scene in particular is messy as well. I noticed several odd cuts throughout the film.
Some of the set design feels rushed and careless.
Several of the actors give slightly subpar performances, which again makes me suspect they didn't have the time to properly reshoot scenes (or even rehearse them).
There's a lot of woke nonsense, with Roman senators played by African Americans, and of course fighting women. Naturally, Paul Mescal's love interest in the film is a warrior woman and master archer... The actress playing her has a fantastic (newcomer Yuval Gonen) screen presence, and her brief appearance stuck with me, but the dialogue between the two was awful. The few second flashbacks in Gladiator 1 made me care more about the lead's loss than the entire opening segment here.
The only actors who really stand out are the ones having fun overacting.
Aside from Denzel Washington, I loved the Roman nobleman he strips of his wealth with wagers, and also the twin emperors, who's character arcs were one of the more interesting aspects of the story. Geta the rational one, in control, and Caracalla, as his mentally retarded brother, who secretly resents him. Great performances by both. Yes, history buffs are displeased with them being portrayed as effeminate and wearing makeup, and in reality Caracalla was a scheming monster who murdered some 20.000 people connected to Geta. But that might have been its own movie.
All the interesting parts of the film don't involve the main character.
We never care about him, and he doesn't play much of a role in the story other than angry guy who wins battles and eventually wants to believe in Rome.
The original film was a much smaller story of two very different characters. Maximus and Commodus' rivalry was personal and intimate. For all its grandiose ambitions, for all the "bigger is better" in the second movie... bigger battles, bigger stakes, two emperors, two armies, 4 villains... for all the machiavellian plotting, the original is tighter because we feel with with hero. We want him to have his revenge.
In this film... I guess we want him to reconnect and make peace with his mother. We want him to stop being angry. That's about it.
I'm torn about what score to give the film. One one hand it's visually beautiful and still leagues above the usual CGI superhero dreck served by the likes of Disney or WB. The story is complicated enough to be interesting, every character has fully written motivations and arcs, there is plenty of spectacle and blood.... so why are we not entertained?
In truth, I was entertained. I certainly wasn't bored. I just wish I could have felt something like I did with the fantastic original.
For over 20 years a sequel was rumored to be in the works. Ridley Scott is close to 90, Russel Crowe's star has since faded, but still we all hoped it would be good. And then the trailer hit. The hip hop score of the trailer and the awful CGI shots of the flooded Colosseum made it look like a Netflix style garbage film.
Luckily, the actual movie isn't nearly as bad as the trailer and some reviews will make you believe. It's actually quite entertaining, briskly passing its 2 1/2 hour runtime. But despite copying the original's story structure almost beat for beat, despite grandiose visuals, costume design and a scene chewing performance by Denzel Washington, the film somehow *feels* worse than it is.
Why? The two most obvious reasons are easily identified. Paul Mescal isn't anywhere near Russel Crowe in terms of gravitas or acting ability. He was a terrible choice to lead this film, passing most of the film with an empty stare. Ridley Scott must have noticed this, too, because much of the movie (the interesting parts) happens around him, sometimes with him not being on screen for several minutes while Denzel Washington intrigues his was up through Roman society. Denzel absolutely steals the show here, stealing the scenery, laughing, having fun, but also always observing, scanning people for weakness and executing his machiavellian plans with ruthless efficiency. He's the best thing about the movie. I particularly like the scene where he speaks with Mescal in his cell towards the end. When Mescal asks about his past, trying to fraternize with him, he just smiles and says "You'll never know" and leaves. No grandiose speech, no attempt to lure him to his side. Washington just discards him. How refreshingly different from the usual Hollywood villain who always gloatingly dump exposition onto the hero.
Equally if not more important is the score. Hans Zimmer's score of the original is one of the best scores in film history. The sequel's score is generic action film slop. Whenever the original themes briefly reappear, it instantly reminds you of a film that made you feel something... while this one makes you feel nothing.
But it doesn't just end there. The more attention you pay to the little things, the more you realize how rushed and careless this film feels. Several of the action scenes, in particular the opening battle feel poorly choreographed and even more poorly edited. Lighting is at times uneven, with scenes clearly shot from multiple angles and not always optimally lit. Some scenes look fantastic, others look flat. I read that the DP was upset with Ridley Scott for rushing production - and it shows.
The editing of the opening scene in particular is messy as well. I noticed several odd cuts throughout the film.
Some of the set design feels rushed and careless.
Several of the actors give slightly subpar performances, which again makes me suspect they didn't have the time to properly reshoot scenes (or even rehearse them).
There's a lot of woke nonsense, with Roman senators played by African Americans, and of course fighting women. Naturally, Paul Mescal's love interest in the film is a warrior woman and master archer... The actress playing her has a fantastic (newcomer Yuval Gonen) screen presence, and her brief appearance stuck with me, but the dialogue between the two was awful. The few second flashbacks in Gladiator 1 made me care more about the lead's loss than the entire opening segment here.
The only actors who really stand out are the ones having fun overacting.
Aside from Denzel Washington, I loved the Roman nobleman he strips of his wealth with wagers, and also the twin emperors, who's character arcs were one of the more interesting aspects of the story. Geta the rational one, in control, and Caracalla, as his mentally retarded brother, who secretly resents him. Great performances by both. Yes, history buffs are displeased with them being portrayed as effeminate and wearing makeup, and in reality Caracalla was a scheming monster who murdered some 20.000 people connected to Geta. But that might have been its own movie.
All the interesting parts of the film don't involve the main character.
We never care about him, and he doesn't play much of a role in the story other than angry guy who wins battles and eventually wants to believe in Rome.
The original film was a much smaller story of two very different characters. Maximus and Commodus' rivalry was personal and intimate. For all its grandiose ambitions, for all the "bigger is better" in the second movie... bigger battles, bigger stakes, two emperors, two armies, 4 villains... for all the machiavellian plotting, the original is tighter because we feel with with hero. We want him to have his revenge.
In this film... I guess we want him to reconnect and make peace with his mother. We want him to stop being angry. That's about it.
I'm torn about what score to give the film. One one hand it's visually beautiful and still leagues above the usual CGI superhero dreck served by the likes of Disney or WB. The story is complicated enough to be interesting, every character has fully written motivations and arcs, there is plenty of spectacle and blood.... so why are we not entertained?
In truth, I was entertained. I certainly wasn't bored. I just wish I could have felt something like I did with the fantastic original.
I like Josh Hartnett as an actor. The trailer already made it very clear this was going to be a solo movie for him, and an all out action bonanza that wouldn't take itself seriously.
Fight or Flight delivers on that promise, but unfortunately on nothing else. Worse, the formula gets repetitive really quickly as the plot stops midway through.
Bit of expository dialogue, Josh Hartnett gets more and more drugged / high, assassins appear, loud noisy rock or j-rock music, assassins get killed in increasingly gory manner. Rinse and repeat for 90 minutes.
Unfortunately, this film also falls into a trap that many modern gore films falls into. It tries to be woke and sensitive, while at the same time being an absolute bloodbath with people getting sawed apart with chainsaws in full closeup.
The female characters are all noble and brave, the male characters are either weak, stupid, corrupt or have OCD. Even among the countless assassins attacking each other, the women send 200 pound trained fighters flying with kicks and punches. You can always tell a real martial artist from an actor / stunt person. Slight cauliflower ears, thickening of the brow ridge, the nose... An untrained person will instinctively notice this, which is why so many people are bored of this disneyfied girl-boss stuff, where 90 pound women with unblemished faces beat up 200 pound men who have clearly been sparring half their lives.
If you're gonna do something edgy, commit to the idea.
80s splatter movies understood this. They didn't shy away from offensive themes or try to placate their audiences with flawless heroes.
Moreover, they didn't use cheap looking digital blood. If you want a scene of someone sawing a person in half with a chainsaw, don't make it a blurry digital mess. Build a latex torso and allow your set to get messy on the last day of shooting.
That, in a nutshell, is the problem with Fight or Flight. It doesn't have the courage or commitment to follow through on its own ideas.
A dark violent comedy like this works, when it's precise in both its humor and its shocks. Think of Peter Jackson's Braindead. Extremely bloody, extremely funny, with every little detail paid attention to and clever foreshadowing.
Fight or Flight is never precise.
That being said, is it unwatchable? No. There are some funny scenes. The fireworks scene (if you've seen the movie, you'll know) is brilliantly surreal and unexpected, and the shock reveal is beautifully exagerrated.
The opening 30 minutes are quite promising. And Josh Hartnett has great charisma. But he deserves better than this junk.
Fight or Flight delivers on that promise, but unfortunately on nothing else. Worse, the formula gets repetitive really quickly as the plot stops midway through.
Bit of expository dialogue, Josh Hartnett gets more and more drugged / high, assassins appear, loud noisy rock or j-rock music, assassins get killed in increasingly gory manner. Rinse and repeat for 90 minutes.
Unfortunately, this film also falls into a trap that many modern gore films falls into. It tries to be woke and sensitive, while at the same time being an absolute bloodbath with people getting sawed apart with chainsaws in full closeup.
The female characters are all noble and brave, the male characters are either weak, stupid, corrupt or have OCD. Even among the countless assassins attacking each other, the women send 200 pound trained fighters flying with kicks and punches. You can always tell a real martial artist from an actor / stunt person. Slight cauliflower ears, thickening of the brow ridge, the nose... An untrained person will instinctively notice this, which is why so many people are bored of this disneyfied girl-boss stuff, where 90 pound women with unblemished faces beat up 200 pound men who have clearly been sparring half their lives.
If you're gonna do something edgy, commit to the idea.
80s splatter movies understood this. They didn't shy away from offensive themes or try to placate their audiences with flawless heroes.
Moreover, they didn't use cheap looking digital blood. If you want a scene of someone sawing a person in half with a chainsaw, don't make it a blurry digital mess. Build a latex torso and allow your set to get messy on the last day of shooting.
That, in a nutshell, is the problem with Fight or Flight. It doesn't have the courage or commitment to follow through on its own ideas.
A dark violent comedy like this works, when it's precise in both its humor and its shocks. Think of Peter Jackson's Braindead. Extremely bloody, extremely funny, with every little detail paid attention to and clever foreshadowing.
Fight or Flight is never precise.
That being said, is it unwatchable? No. There are some funny scenes. The fireworks scene (if you've seen the movie, you'll know) is brilliantly surreal and unexpected, and the shock reveal is beautifully exagerrated.
The opening 30 minutes are quite promising. And Josh Hartnett has great charisma. But he deserves better than this junk.
