Year: 2010
Director: Scott Stewart
Screenplay: Scott Stewart, Peter Schink
Starring: Paul Bettany, Lucas Black, Dennis Quaid, Charles S Dutton, Tyrese Gibson, Adrianne Palicki
Plot synopsis is here
Convention is fine, Homage isn't an issue and neither is cliche if used correctly. These things will never bother an audience if the filmmakers are creative enough with their material. Legion however is devoid of pesky little things like imagination, in fact it damn near avoids it. But that's not the only thing this little movie has in store. It's also inept in storytelling, full of atrocious acting and lethargic action sequences. Let's not stop there! The film is also full of cheap shoddy symbolism, tried themes and a distinct lack of urgency...it's also fucking stupid.
Legion is a bad film. A film that takes a tried premise runs it into the ground, but even then has trouble finding the floor. I've never seen an apocalyptic movie which seemingly has so little at stakes. Even when the film tell us (it does love to TELL you things instead of SHOWING) the levels of peril, it can't even effectively display the risk. We are not scared, we are not worried...hell for most of the movie I wasn't even bothered.
Much of this stems from the movies reluctance on building on the (very) tiny sparks of interest and deciding on retreading elements and imagery that were used in better movies. Watch how the angel Micheal (A very bored Bettany) descends to earth and also how he's introduced to the human characters when he emerges out of the LA police car. The imagery is so connected to a certain sci-fi film, that it looks not only out of place within this film but foolhardy. The film constantly does this; a bit of Assault on Precinct 13 here, a little bit of night of the living dead there, the film is a hodgepodge of ideas used better in other movies. The director does nothing to hide this or integrate them properly into the film he lets them hang ridiculously...such is life.
I'll be honest. I really liked the idea that if mankind was to be wiped out by the angels, then our will, emotional strength and our very humanity would be tested first. When these words are uttered in the film I was expecting to see something worthwhile. Director Scott Stewart decides that whats more interesting then testing these characters is more talking in a diner. Like I said before...tiny sparks of interest. It's a damn shame they shrivel and die like weeds in a well kept allotment. What's more interesting to Stewart is absurd character motivations. Check out poor Kate Walsh's schizophrenic mother character for a laugh.
Other unintentionally amusing moments include token black thug (the "wonderful" actor that is Tyrese) and token black gospel guy (Charles S. Dutton...Why?) sprouting stereotypical dialogue that would make Ben from Night of the Living Dead cry tears of blood, perfect t-shaped explosions, Dennis Quaid looking like he didn't get paid enough for his woeful dialogue and of course a whizzing mace that is carried by all angels.
Will I see worse movies than Legion this year? Possibly. But Legion wishes to belong to one of those special inner circles of cinematic hell. You know the place, where the resident evil sequels and American Psycho 2 reside. Imagine the torture to be hellish, however not as hellish as having to watch this again.
Monday, 8 March 2010
Sunday, 7 March 2010
Review: Crazy Heart
Year: 2010
Director: Scott Cooper
Screenplay: Scott Cooper
Starring: Jeff Bridges, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Robert Duvall, Colin Farrell
Plot Synopsis is here
Crazy Heart is not a very surprising movie. It follows the same well trodden paths as many musical biopics or character studies and seen them once then you've seen them all. However, Scott Cooper's film is not only effective in telling the tale well but it also features a great performance from Jeff Bridges. It may not be the Dude, but it's a towering performance that dictates much of the film. There's a laid back charm shines through so many moments of the display, that it's hard not to like Bad Blake, despite what his inner demons have done. I feel that if you enjoy Bridges' performance than you'll warm to the whole movie.
This is not to say that there's nothing else to Crazy Heart at all. Not at all. From an acting point of view the whole cast is worth watching; Maggie Gyllenhaal's sensitivity and shyness is spot on as Jean, Robert Duvall (a producer to the film) appears with a small yet amusingly grizzled display, and Colin Farrell once again reminds us that he has a great talent for accents.
In fact Farrell's pivotal role is one of the most interesting of the film as we are given a character who looks to be a full on antagonist who actually isn't that despicable at all. The few scenes that Farrell share with Bridges on screen are to me the most memorable. The reasons for the former partners breaking up are ambiguous enough to keep a considerable amount of weariness about both characters and what happened. Credit to Cooper is due for keep the tone in the writing and execution of the scenes from being too explicit.
I also liked how alcoholism is approached in the movie. Yes, you have your more "blatant" moments, but it's the quieter moments that are the most affecting. The best moment being seeing Blake sober compared to drunk. A small moment but effective.
This does bring me to the movies third act, which unfortunately are not as strong as the scenes that have taken place before it. At the end of the film, everything seems to tie up a little too neatly. In fact I found myself asking "is it that easy?!?!" It's a little hard to swallow considering how far this character had fallen. However like I mentioned before this is a character study on rails and contrivance does rear it's ugly head at the best of times.
But it doesn't stop the film from being watchable. Very watchable in fact. The dialogue is funny, the emotional moments are warming enough and the almost relaxed nature of the film makes it hard to hate. There's been comparisons of Crazy Heart to The Wrestler and while I can see the similarities, The Wrestlers effectiveness comes from the attention to detail to that world. It's a stronger movie that doesn't let up. Crazy Heart is more interested in letting you go with the flow.
Director: Scott Cooper
Screenplay: Scott Cooper
Starring: Jeff Bridges, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Robert Duvall, Colin Farrell
Plot Synopsis is here
Crazy Heart is not a very surprising movie. It follows the same well trodden paths as many musical biopics or character studies and seen them once then you've seen them all. However, Scott Cooper's film is not only effective in telling the tale well but it also features a great performance from Jeff Bridges. It may not be the Dude, but it's a towering performance that dictates much of the film. There's a laid back charm shines through so many moments of the display, that it's hard not to like Bad Blake, despite what his inner demons have done. I feel that if you enjoy Bridges' performance than you'll warm to the whole movie.
This is not to say that there's nothing else to Crazy Heart at all. Not at all. From an acting point of view the whole cast is worth watching; Maggie Gyllenhaal's sensitivity and shyness is spot on as Jean, Robert Duvall (a producer to the film) appears with a small yet amusingly grizzled display, and Colin Farrell once again reminds us that he has a great talent for accents.
In fact Farrell's pivotal role is one of the most interesting of the film as we are given a character who looks to be a full on antagonist who actually isn't that despicable at all. The few scenes that Farrell share with Bridges on screen are to me the most memorable. The reasons for the former partners breaking up are ambiguous enough to keep a considerable amount of weariness about both characters and what happened. Credit to Cooper is due for keep the tone in the writing and execution of the scenes from being too explicit.
I also liked how alcoholism is approached in the movie. Yes, you have your more "blatant" moments, but it's the quieter moments that are the most affecting. The best moment being seeing Blake sober compared to drunk. A small moment but effective.
This does bring me to the movies third act, which unfortunately are not as strong as the scenes that have taken place before it. At the end of the film, everything seems to tie up a little too neatly. In fact I found myself asking "is it that easy?!?!" It's a little hard to swallow considering how far this character had fallen. However like I mentioned before this is a character study on rails and contrivance does rear it's ugly head at the best of times.
But it doesn't stop the film from being watchable. Very watchable in fact. The dialogue is funny, the emotional moments are warming enough and the almost relaxed nature of the film makes it hard to hate. There's been comparisons of Crazy Heart to The Wrestler and while I can see the similarities, The Wrestlers effectiveness comes from the attention to detail to that world. It's a stronger movie that doesn't let up. Crazy Heart is more interested in letting you go with the flow.
Review: Alice In Wonderland
Year: 2010
Director: Tim Burton
Screenplay: Linda Woolverton
Starring: Mia Wasikowska, Johnny Depp, Helena Bohnam Carter, Anne Hathaway, Crispin Glover, Stephen Fry, Barbra Windsor, Alan Rickman, Micheal Sheen, Matt Lucas, Paul Whithouse
Ploy Synopsis is here
For me, Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland is much like his Charlie and the Chocolate Factory; the film lacks focus. The script is patchy, the main character is relegated to background for various reasons and emotional response is minimal. Once again Burton is more interested in bulking up the background of the "oddballs" than giving the lead character and the story the drive that the film truly needs.
In addition to this, the visual aspect of Burton's work is weak. There's an over reliance of CGI and Green screen that really effected my enjoyment of the world. In comparison to the wonderful balance of CGI imagination and real world that Terry Gilliam managed with The Imaginium of Doctor Parnassus and I found that visually, Wonderland suffers. Not that we're allowed to see that much of it anyway. Once we enter Wonderland we are never given a full experience of actual Wonderment that is really needed to be effective. Alice falls down the rabbit hole having forgotten her original adventure (a bad piece of plotting) but doesn't seem to give much of a damn of how bizarre this world is, something that The Blue Movie (for it's faults) got right.
But then again the film doesn't appear to be really about Alice in Wonderland. No it's more about the Mad Hatter in Mordor (Wonderland nabs quite a bit from middle earth in looks) or The Red Queen's sibling rivalry with the White Queen. Mia Wasikowska is a blank slate and remains that way throughout the entire film. Yes, she bookends the film's story, however her "realizations" at the end of the film come of a little more than a bit of a cheat. Is Wasikowska a bad actress? Maybe. But this film isn't the one to judge her because she has nothing to do and no characterization to grab hold of. But this was the same in CHARLIE and chocolate factory in which Burton and his screenwriter decided that Willy Wonka is clearly the focus of the film and not the titular character.
So once again the film relies on the viewers affection for Johnny Depp more than anything to hold your attention. It's a shame that my love for him is waning. This is not because Depp is a bad actor or bad in this (in fact he's one of the more appealing aspects of the film). But it's because that the more "off key" the Depp performance is the plainer it now seems to become. Depp by numbers is the term I'd use. I doubt we will see a subtle performance from him anytime soon.
It's been quite a while since the movie and I'm still wondering in the point of Anne Hathaway being in the role she was in. I like what she did with the part, but she had to do something to make such needless character interesting. The same goes for Crispin Glover as the Knave of Hearts. The standout is of course Burton's wife Helena Bonham Carter, who, nepotism or not gives a devilishly delicious display (say it quickly) as The Red Queen. Yes, her character traits are from the queen of hearts but give her some credit!
The problem is there's not enough of Carter's energy to go around. It's that kind of verve that was needed to push the films flimsy plot forward. Once again Burton has mentioned of his dislike of the source material (RE: Batman, comics) but the changes agreed with himself and others in the production are more frustrating than anything else. Many of the films set pieces are quite dull, and the films pace is a plodding one, which wouldn't be a problem if Alice wanted to explore such a dream world. May I also add that the 3d element is clearly an after thought and not only takes away some of the films sorely needed colour but adds no depth of immersion to the proceedings but please...like I enjoy the idea of 3D...
On the whole Alice in Wonderland is yet another dreary adaptation of a famous work that lacks the heart found in Big Fish nor the inventiveness of his earlier works. I'm there's enough Johnny and art direction for the die hard fans, but those looking for a dark look at a classic fairy tale may find the whole thing a bit soulless.
Note: Burton's latest achievement in Depp and Set Design is breaking a few Box Office records but hey, just because 50 Cent sold $12 Million on get rich or die tryin doesn't mean I have to think he's a great rapper.
Director: Tim Burton
Screenplay: Linda Woolverton
Starring: Mia Wasikowska, Johnny Depp, Helena Bohnam Carter, Anne Hathaway, Crispin Glover, Stephen Fry, Barbra Windsor, Alan Rickman, Micheal Sheen, Matt Lucas, Paul Whithouse
Ploy Synopsis is here
For me, Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland is much like his Charlie and the Chocolate Factory; the film lacks focus. The script is patchy, the main character is relegated to background for various reasons and emotional response is minimal. Once again Burton is more interested in bulking up the background of the "oddballs" than giving the lead character and the story the drive that the film truly needs.
In addition to this, the visual aspect of Burton's work is weak. There's an over reliance of CGI and Green screen that really effected my enjoyment of the world. In comparison to the wonderful balance of CGI imagination and real world that Terry Gilliam managed with The Imaginium of Doctor Parnassus and I found that visually, Wonderland suffers. Not that we're allowed to see that much of it anyway. Once we enter Wonderland we are never given a full experience of actual Wonderment that is really needed to be effective. Alice falls down the rabbit hole having forgotten her original adventure (a bad piece of plotting) but doesn't seem to give much of a damn of how bizarre this world is, something that The Blue Movie (for it's faults) got right.
But then again the film doesn't appear to be really about Alice in Wonderland. No it's more about the Mad Hatter in Mordor (Wonderland nabs quite a bit from middle earth in looks) or The Red Queen's sibling rivalry with the White Queen. Mia Wasikowska is a blank slate and remains that way throughout the entire film. Yes, she bookends the film's story, however her "realizations" at the end of the film come of a little more than a bit of a cheat. Is Wasikowska a bad actress? Maybe. But this film isn't the one to judge her because she has nothing to do and no characterization to grab hold of. But this was the same in CHARLIE and chocolate factory in which Burton and his screenwriter decided that Willy Wonka is clearly the focus of the film and not the titular character.
So once again the film relies on the viewers affection for Johnny Depp more than anything to hold your attention. It's a shame that my love for him is waning. This is not because Depp is a bad actor or bad in this (in fact he's one of the more appealing aspects of the film). But it's because that the more "off key" the Depp performance is the plainer it now seems to become. Depp by numbers is the term I'd use. I doubt we will see a subtle performance from him anytime soon.
It's been quite a while since the movie and I'm still wondering in the point of Anne Hathaway being in the role she was in. I like what she did with the part, but she had to do something to make such needless character interesting. The same goes for Crispin Glover as the Knave of Hearts. The standout is of course Burton's wife Helena Bonham Carter, who, nepotism or not gives a devilishly delicious display (say it quickly) as The Red Queen. Yes, her character traits are from the queen of hearts but give her some credit!
The problem is there's not enough of Carter's energy to go around. It's that kind of verve that was needed to push the films flimsy plot forward. Once again Burton has mentioned of his dislike of the source material (RE: Batman, comics) but the changes agreed with himself and others in the production are more frustrating than anything else. Many of the films set pieces are quite dull, and the films pace is a plodding one, which wouldn't be a problem if Alice wanted to explore such a dream world. May I also add that the 3d element is clearly an after thought and not only takes away some of the films sorely needed colour but adds no depth of immersion to the proceedings but please...like I enjoy the idea of 3D...
On the whole Alice in Wonderland is yet another dreary adaptation of a famous work that lacks the heart found in Big Fish nor the inventiveness of his earlier works. I'm there's enough Johnny and art direction for the die hard fans, but those looking for a dark look at a classic fairy tale may find the whole thing a bit soulless.
Note: Burton's latest achievement in Depp and Set Design is breaking a few Box Office records but hey, just because 50 Cent sold $12 Million on get rich or die tryin doesn't mean I have to think he's a great rapper.
Sunday, 28 February 2010
Review: The Crazies
Year: 2010
Director: Breck Eisner
Screenplay: Scott Kosar, Ray Wright
Starring: Timothy Olyphant, Radha Mitchell, Joe Anderson, Danielle Panabaker
Plot Synopsis is here
I'm becoming more and more mellow about the amount of horror remakes that are being churned out in the last few years. I'm theorizing that the works of Craven, Carpenter, Romero et all are being redone as tributes to what are clearly recognized as modern genre classics. I mean how many takes of Dracula has there been? Perhaps I'm being naive, but then if I think like this I at least going into these films with even more of an open mind. As I've said before, I don't mind them as long as they're done well
The Crazies; yet another remake of an older cult horror film is one I consider to be well done. Starting quickly and landing us straight into the action, Breck Eisner sets the scene competently, giving off a vibe reminiscent of the 50's version of Invasion of the Body Snatchers. The film works best with it's simple moments, much like a similar film of it's ilk: Pontypool. A repeated phase here, a glazed stare there, irregular whistling that unsettling feeling you get when the normal is askew exists in the films opening act and if it were to continue down that road I would have already have signed up for the special edition home release. Alas the film does go down cliche alley at times, with the odd info dump scattered about, and telling moments of horror familiarity, such is life.
However the film is crafted well enough to keep the tension raised and my interest peaked and although it doesn't capture Romero's more nihilistic tone, it does manage to give off an absurd uncertainty to the proceedings.
Visually Eisner doesn't nothing particularly new, but he clearly releases the importance of sound in a horror film. The churning of the massive combine, the scraping of knives and rakes, isolated moments of silence, it works well and it's the combination of these other moments of sound that make the usual zinger sound of the jump scare a little more effective. In fact the jump scares aren't bad here although still a little too easily telegraphed.
Cast wise, we in good hands. Timothy Olyphant is a consistent actor and once again puts in what you would not only expect from him but from the part as well. A villain or anti-hero in many films, Olyphant is allowed the chance to roam around as the do-good sheriff and doesn't put a foot wrong.
Many talk about the various strung out mother roles of Vera Farmiga but spare a thought for the genre queen that Radha Mitchell. Roles like the one she has here are her bread and butter and once again she pulls it out of the bag. Same goes for Danielle Panabaker whose clearly at home with material like this (see Friday the 13th remake or Mr Brooks). Bringing up the rear is Joe Anderson giving us the comic relief that comes as standard with this sort of affair but his animated display is a great distraction and for me he comes into his own by the end of the film.
As yet another entry into the diseased body sub-genre The Crazies has it's fair share of scares and a creepy unease that flows through the film. It doesn't have the guts of a Pontypool and the film could really be more anarchic in the later moments, but as a whole, The Crazies is solid piece of b-horror madness.
Director: Breck Eisner
Screenplay: Scott Kosar, Ray Wright
Starring: Timothy Olyphant, Radha Mitchell, Joe Anderson, Danielle Panabaker
Plot Synopsis is here
I'm becoming more and more mellow about the amount of horror remakes that are being churned out in the last few years. I'm theorizing that the works of Craven, Carpenter, Romero et all are being redone as tributes to what are clearly recognized as modern genre classics. I mean how many takes of Dracula has there been? Perhaps I'm being naive, but then if I think like this I at least going into these films with even more of an open mind. As I've said before, I don't mind them as long as they're done well
The Crazies; yet another remake of an older cult horror film is one I consider to be well done. Starting quickly and landing us straight into the action, Breck Eisner sets the scene competently, giving off a vibe reminiscent of the 50's version of Invasion of the Body Snatchers. The film works best with it's simple moments, much like a similar film of it's ilk: Pontypool. A repeated phase here, a glazed stare there, irregular whistling that unsettling feeling you get when the normal is askew exists in the films opening act and if it were to continue down that road I would have already have signed up for the special edition home release. Alas the film does go down cliche alley at times, with the odd info dump scattered about, and telling moments of horror familiarity, such is life.
However the film is crafted well enough to keep the tension raised and my interest peaked and although it doesn't capture Romero's more nihilistic tone, it does manage to give off an absurd uncertainty to the proceedings.
Visually Eisner doesn't nothing particularly new, but he clearly releases the importance of sound in a horror film. The churning of the massive combine, the scraping of knives and rakes, isolated moments of silence, it works well and it's the combination of these other moments of sound that make the usual zinger sound of the jump scare a little more effective. In fact the jump scares aren't bad here although still a little too easily telegraphed.
Cast wise, we in good hands. Timothy Olyphant is a consistent actor and once again puts in what you would not only expect from him but from the part as well. A villain or anti-hero in many films, Olyphant is allowed the chance to roam around as the do-good sheriff and doesn't put a foot wrong.
Many talk about the various strung out mother roles of Vera Farmiga but spare a thought for the genre queen that Radha Mitchell. Roles like the one she has here are her bread and butter and once again she pulls it out of the bag. Same goes for Danielle Panabaker whose clearly at home with material like this (see Friday the 13th remake or Mr Brooks). Bringing up the rear is Joe Anderson giving us the comic relief that comes as standard with this sort of affair but his animated display is a great distraction and for me he comes into his own by the end of the film.
As yet another entry into the diseased body sub-genre The Crazies has it's fair share of scares and a creepy unease that flows through the film. It doesn't have the guts of a Pontypool and the film could really be more anarchic in the later moments, but as a whole, The Crazies is solid piece of b-horror madness.
Review: From Paris with Love
Year: 2010
Director: Pierre Morel
Screenplay: Adi Hasak
Starring: John Travolta, Jonathan Rhys Meyers
Plot Synopsis is here
Bringing up the rear of the January to February junk train is From Paris with Love a wreck of a movie that reminded me why I'm not as interested in action movies as much any more. It's producer and story writer Luc Besson is a filmmaker who has brought about some classic action to audiences. Far-fetched many they may be, and yet grounded with solid characters who you can get behind and a plot that not only intrigues but allows the action to flow well along side it. It seems that Besson has become bored of all this "effort" and now writes stories (I use the term loosely in the case of this film) so some jobber can try (I use the term strongly) to write the screenplay. The result is a lazy excuse of a plot that could be fixed with five extra pages to fill out that tiny little thing called plot.
I don't mind streamlined plot, and I don't mind all out action, but I do want them to sit together well. Here they don't. Reason? Well there's no plot to speak of. No internal logic, no true reasoning behind certain things just...stuff happens. What about the action that will patch the so called story together? Bland as they come. We saw similar in the Besson produced Taken but at least with that film I enjoy the time I spent with a restrained but dangerous Liam Nesson. In this film we have John Travolta to contend with.
Travolta has decided to go back into the Pelham 123 bag and pull out another demented performance as a bigoted "wigger". How do you get a bigoted wigger you may ask. Did you not see what I wrote above? Travolta's hammy over acting isn't as frustrating as it was in Tony Scott's movie but still has it's moments of irritation. To describe this role; in the eighties it would have been cast by a bad black comic because Eddie Murphy wouldn't be available. Jonathan Rhys Meyers doesn't fare much better as the straight man, mostly because the film doesn't care enough about him. In a film like this the chemistry of the actors and the connection of the characters should be central to the story. However, as they're is no story then there's no chemistry or connection. We're waiting for them to stop talking to get to the next average action sequence (admittedly at least the scenes are edited well enough so you can see what happens).
Director Pierre Morel clearly has talent as a director of capturing action, but there's nothing in this film that had the verve of District 13 nor the bluntness of Taken. The story needs works and for those who felt there was xenophobia in Taken should not watch this movie. Although a couple of guys did laugh at the fact that John Travolta shot down loads of Muslims and bragged about it. But that also says a lot about them not the movie, but then that was the only time people actually found anything in this film funny. The films schizophrenic tone doesn't know if it wants to be serious or absurd and tries to tread water...not a good idea.
For those who want to watch what I would consider a well done action flick with a streamlined plot; watch Taken or Shoot em up. For those have money to burn on a film with a irrational toned piece of mediocrity....ENJOY!
Director: Pierre Morel
Screenplay: Adi Hasak
Starring: John Travolta, Jonathan Rhys Meyers
Plot Synopsis is here
Bringing up the rear of the January to February junk train is From Paris with Love a wreck of a movie that reminded me why I'm not as interested in action movies as much any more. It's producer and story writer Luc Besson is a filmmaker who has brought about some classic action to audiences. Far-fetched many they may be, and yet grounded with solid characters who you can get behind and a plot that not only intrigues but allows the action to flow well along side it. It seems that Besson has become bored of all this "effort" and now writes stories (I use the term loosely in the case of this film) so some jobber can try (I use the term strongly) to write the screenplay. The result is a lazy excuse of a plot that could be fixed with five extra pages to fill out that tiny little thing called plot.
I don't mind streamlined plot, and I don't mind all out action, but I do want them to sit together well. Here they don't. Reason? Well there's no plot to speak of. No internal logic, no true reasoning behind certain things just...stuff happens. What about the action that will patch the so called story together? Bland as they come. We saw similar in the Besson produced Taken but at least with that film I enjoy the time I spent with a restrained but dangerous Liam Nesson. In this film we have John Travolta to contend with.
Travolta has decided to go back into the Pelham 123 bag and pull out another demented performance as a bigoted "wigger". How do you get a bigoted wigger you may ask. Did you not see what I wrote above? Travolta's hammy over acting isn't as frustrating as it was in Tony Scott's movie but still has it's moments of irritation. To describe this role; in the eighties it would have been cast by a bad black comic because Eddie Murphy wouldn't be available. Jonathan Rhys Meyers doesn't fare much better as the straight man, mostly because the film doesn't care enough about him. In a film like this the chemistry of the actors and the connection of the characters should be central to the story. However, as they're is no story then there's no chemistry or connection. We're waiting for them to stop talking to get to the next average action sequence (admittedly at least the scenes are edited well enough so you can see what happens).
Director Pierre Morel clearly has talent as a director of capturing action, but there's nothing in this film that had the verve of District 13 nor the bluntness of Taken. The story needs works and for those who felt there was xenophobia in Taken should not watch this movie. Although a couple of guys did laugh at the fact that John Travolta shot down loads of Muslims and bragged about it. But that also says a lot about them not the movie, but then that was the only time people actually found anything in this film funny. The films schizophrenic tone doesn't know if it wants to be serious or absurd and tries to tread water...not a good idea.
For those who want to watch what I would consider a well done action flick with a streamlined plot; watch Taken or Shoot em up. For those have money to burn on a film with a irrational toned piece of mediocrity....ENJOY!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)