TheEnigmaticRonin
Joined Jul 2006
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.
Badges13
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Reviews13
TheEnigmaticRonin's rating
Based on J.D Campbells story " Who Goes There", The Thing is a remake of a John Carpenter movie by the same name, which is again a remake of a Howard Hawks movie " The Thing From Another World". Even though its sometimes considered a prequel to Carpenter version, others insist its a continuation. When it could be both, or neither. Now that I have confused the hell out of you, lets get down to the review.
Heijningen's The Thing, sticks closer to the John Carpenter version, both visually and story wise so it would be impossible to not compare them. While the story is basically the same, the pacing, in which its told, is completely different, unlike Carpenters version Heijningen's Thing doesn't build up any momentum, it never lets the cold barren environment really creep in, before it shows the alien, which is frozen just a few inches beneath the ice. Funny how the team is able to locate the alien-ship several km below the surface but not the alien itself, which is visible to the naked eye, anyways. So before you know it, the story has already kicked in, and we have monster on the loose, unlike the book, or the carpenter version where the monster is never clearly defined, in this version it is your average generic CGI "crab-insect-alien". Even though they stick to the formula of The Thing being a virus which clones its victims likeness, it makes it less scary, and ninja like, when you just show the damn thing, and not to forget, it looks like crap.
The First half of the movie is your average generic alien movie, but then it gets back to its roots, and thats where things get good. The cast consist mostly of Scandinavian actors, mostly Norwegians, with the exception of the lead, Mary Elizabeth Winstead (Scott Pilgrim VS The World), Joel Edgerton (Warrior) and Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje (G.I Joe) and a few others. Having a female lead character was a clever idea to change it from the earlier versions and keep the story fresh, her character is likable, and she does a good job with the role.
This was also the Hollywood debut of plenty Norwegian actors such as Trond Espen Seim (Varg Veum), Jørgen Langhelle (Elling) to name a few, but surprisingly the character who stole the show for me personally, was the character named "Peder", played by Stig Henrik Hoff, he plays both a serious character, and the comedic relief. Most of their lines are in Norwegian.
Ill keep it short and sum it up.
Its inferior to both the Hawks, and the Carpenter version, but that doesn't mean its a bad movie, The production value is decent, its what you would expect from a contemporary remake, the alien effects are all CGI, it doesn't look organic at all, but still serves the purpose. The cast is OK, could be worse, and the direction is not praiseworthy but for a debut, its pretty damn good. An entertaining flick, with gross-out effects, decent acting, and Stig Henrik Hoff screaming "Faen I Helvete!" with a flame thrower, half the time, Check it out.
Heijningen's The Thing, sticks closer to the John Carpenter version, both visually and story wise so it would be impossible to not compare them. While the story is basically the same, the pacing, in which its told, is completely different, unlike Carpenters version Heijningen's Thing doesn't build up any momentum, it never lets the cold barren environment really creep in, before it shows the alien, which is frozen just a few inches beneath the ice. Funny how the team is able to locate the alien-ship several km below the surface but not the alien itself, which is visible to the naked eye, anyways. So before you know it, the story has already kicked in, and we have monster on the loose, unlike the book, or the carpenter version where the monster is never clearly defined, in this version it is your average generic CGI "crab-insect-alien". Even though they stick to the formula of The Thing being a virus which clones its victims likeness, it makes it less scary, and ninja like, when you just show the damn thing, and not to forget, it looks like crap.
The First half of the movie is your average generic alien movie, but then it gets back to its roots, and thats where things get good. The cast consist mostly of Scandinavian actors, mostly Norwegians, with the exception of the lead, Mary Elizabeth Winstead (Scott Pilgrim VS The World), Joel Edgerton (Warrior) and Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje (G.I Joe) and a few others. Having a female lead character was a clever idea to change it from the earlier versions and keep the story fresh, her character is likable, and she does a good job with the role.
This was also the Hollywood debut of plenty Norwegian actors such as Trond Espen Seim (Varg Veum), Jørgen Langhelle (Elling) to name a few, but surprisingly the character who stole the show for me personally, was the character named "Peder", played by Stig Henrik Hoff, he plays both a serious character, and the comedic relief. Most of their lines are in Norwegian.
Ill keep it short and sum it up.
Its inferior to both the Hawks, and the Carpenter version, but that doesn't mean its a bad movie, The production value is decent, its what you would expect from a contemporary remake, the alien effects are all CGI, it doesn't look organic at all, but still serves the purpose. The cast is OK, could be worse, and the direction is not praiseworthy but for a debut, its pretty damn good. An entertaining flick, with gross-out effects, decent acting, and Stig Henrik Hoff screaming "Faen I Helvete!" with a flame thrower, half the time, Check it out.
Similar to the first two movies, Bullet Man is an alternate retelling of the same story. (avoiding spoilers) The protagonist is alienated in the big city, and "something" triggers a mechanical mutation which results into a physical transformation. Plotwise its what you'd expect in a Tetsuo-film.
Bullet Man is certainly among Tsukamoto's most experimental films, but in a completely different way, due to its casting decisions, and the bold choice of shooting the dialog entirely in English(with few exceptions), unlike Takashi Miike's Sukiyaki Western Django, the dialog in this movie is in fact comprehensible. Its very obvious that Tsukamoto was aiming for a broader audience, but it didn't work quite as well.
I must admit that I was skeptical to Bossick in the lead role, but he is actually very well casted, his character is different from Taguchi, but still similar, he is a bit more stable, but furious at the same time.
Akiko Monou as Bossick's wife on the other hand doesn't work that well, its a dull performance mostly because of her dialog being in English. The chemistry between the two leads isn't present either, but this gets better as the film progresses, and then there is good old Shinya Tsukamoto as " The Guy " you'd be disappointed that he doesn't reprise his role as the metal fetishist, but he still play a pretty bad-ass character, and its a great performance.
The digital look of the film is not working in its favor at all, yet there are lots of trademark shots from the previous films, like the close ups of machinery etc, and Chu Ishikawa's industrial theme, are all present, and its shot in the same frenetic manner, but the gritty, and raw 16mm look is absent.
The Bullet Man, seems more like an American remake of the first film, it has this mainstream feel to it, and doesn't rely that much on symbolism and metaphors, like the first two films. Another big letdown is, this time there is no mutated counterpart for protagonist to fight, instead we have a bunch of army guys.
I would still recommend this to all Tsukamoto fans. It's different, and not among his best, but that doesn't necessarily mean that its bad. Check it out. 6/10
Bullet Man is certainly among Tsukamoto's most experimental films, but in a completely different way, due to its casting decisions, and the bold choice of shooting the dialog entirely in English(with few exceptions), unlike Takashi Miike's Sukiyaki Western Django, the dialog in this movie is in fact comprehensible. Its very obvious that Tsukamoto was aiming for a broader audience, but it didn't work quite as well.
I must admit that I was skeptical to Bossick in the lead role, but he is actually very well casted, his character is different from Taguchi, but still similar, he is a bit more stable, but furious at the same time.
Akiko Monou as Bossick's wife on the other hand doesn't work that well, its a dull performance mostly because of her dialog being in English. The chemistry between the two leads isn't present either, but this gets better as the film progresses, and then there is good old Shinya Tsukamoto as " The Guy " you'd be disappointed that he doesn't reprise his role as the metal fetishist, but he still play a pretty bad-ass character, and its a great performance.
The digital look of the film is not working in its favor at all, yet there are lots of trademark shots from the previous films, like the close ups of machinery etc, and Chu Ishikawa's industrial theme, are all present, and its shot in the same frenetic manner, but the gritty, and raw 16mm look is absent.
The Bullet Man, seems more like an American remake of the first film, it has this mainstream feel to it, and doesn't rely that much on symbolism and metaphors, like the first two films. Another big letdown is, this time there is no mutated counterpart for protagonist to fight, instead we have a bunch of army guys.
I would still recommend this to all Tsukamoto fans. It's different, and not among his best, but that doesn't necessarily mean that its bad. Check it out. 6/10
I must admit I had really high hopes for this one, and to be honest this is probably the best live action Lucky Luke movie I've seen, and I've seen em all. There are some funny scenes, and instances where it pays homage to the source material.
Now.
Cast wasn't bad, specially Billy The Kid, he was spot on, acting was well... alright I'll ...accept, costume could not have been better, seriously a solid 9 out of 10 for costumes, the set was very good, Daisy Town looked fantastic,.... so why such a low rating? if the freaking thing just had a damn plot! Its just random scenes, they "look" pretty cool, but doesn't always serve any purpose, the writing is VERY cheap.
Its like something happens, the music hints its something dramatic/beautiful or even a plot twist, and you don't get it, then it cuts to flashback that shows you why its a twist,(this happens at least twice) its like what if in Fight Club SPOILER ALERT! if Ed Norton is told he is Durden, without establishing the character of Pitt, and then in a cheap flashback its explained that he thought Pitt was Durden all this time(Im aware of that, the flashback actually occurs), but as if its the first and only time we see Pitt. END SPOILER .... and you are never sure what its trying to be. A western, spaghetti western, a spoof, Is it a comedy?, well there is a kid who witness the brutal murder of his parents, and is therefore seeking revenge, but our hero never kills anyone, so what in the holy name of God almighty, is he going to do when he finds the killer? it makes no sense, and the revenge theme is absent throughout the movie except maybe 4 minutes, near the end.
The first half of the movie isn't horrible, the second half on the other hand, is cheap, doesn't make much sense, tries to be clever, and is plain boring.
Its really sad, because it could have been a great film, they had the budget and the actors, what a wasted opportunity, if you are a fan you would be very disappointed, if you are not a fan then you are definitely going to be disappointed, because it wouldn't even have any nostalgic value.
Now.
Cast wasn't bad, specially Billy The Kid, he was spot on, acting was well... alright I'll ...accept, costume could not have been better, seriously a solid 9 out of 10 for costumes, the set was very good, Daisy Town looked fantastic,.... so why such a low rating? if the freaking thing just had a damn plot! Its just random scenes, they "look" pretty cool, but doesn't always serve any purpose, the writing is VERY cheap.
Its like something happens, the music hints its something dramatic/beautiful or even a plot twist, and you don't get it, then it cuts to flashback that shows you why its a twist,(this happens at least twice) its like what if in Fight Club SPOILER ALERT! if Ed Norton is told he is Durden, without establishing the character of Pitt, and then in a cheap flashback its explained that he thought Pitt was Durden all this time(Im aware of that, the flashback actually occurs), but as if its the first and only time we see Pitt. END SPOILER .... and you are never sure what its trying to be. A western, spaghetti western, a spoof, Is it a comedy?, well there is a kid who witness the brutal murder of his parents, and is therefore seeking revenge, but our hero never kills anyone, so what in the holy name of God almighty, is he going to do when he finds the killer? it makes no sense, and the revenge theme is absent throughout the movie except maybe 4 minutes, near the end.
The first half of the movie isn't horrible, the second half on the other hand, is cheap, doesn't make much sense, tries to be clever, and is plain boring.
Its really sad, because it could have been a great film, they had the budget and the actors, what a wasted opportunity, if you are a fan you would be very disappointed, if you are not a fan then you are definitely going to be disappointed, because it wouldn't even have any nostalgic value.
